Forensic Linguistic Analysis of Language Crimes in Sociological Context: Solicitation, Threatening, and Conspiracy - the Mustafa Case

This paper examines the application of forensic linguistic principles to analyze criminal speech acts in the Egyptian case of Hesham Talaat Mustafa, convicted of inciting the murder of Suzan Tamim. Drawing on speech act theory, discourse analysis, and sociolinguistics, the study analyzes reported excerpts of recorded conversations between Mustafa and the perpetrator, Mohsen Al-Sokary, alongside court documents and testimonies. The central research question investigates how Mustafa's utterances fulfill the speech act conditions for solicitation, threatening, and conspiracy. The analysis identifies key linguistic features, including directives, commissive, representatives, and euphemisms, demonstrating their contribution to illocutionary force and perlocutionary effect. The broader conversational context, marked by an asymmetrical power relationship and shared understandings, further supports criminal intent. Sociological theories of crime (Differential Association, Strain, Social Control, and Rational Choice) are integrated to provide insights into motivations and social contexts. The study utilizes NVivo for qualitative data analysis, coding for speech acts, linguistic features, and thematic patterns. Findings reveal that Mustafa's communication demonstrably fulfills the criteria for solicitation through consistent directives, financial inducements, and rejection of alternatives. Threatening was established through both direct and indirect threats, creating fear. Evidence of agreement, planning, shared goals, and coordination indicated conspiracy. The analysis, though limited by reliance on reported excerpts rather than full transcripts, confirms that the recorded communication, as presented, provides strong linguistic evidence supporting the charges.