In part one, we have seen that due to the emotional and intellectual impact of the "unexpected", the analyst, upon revisiting a statement after some passage of time, may find a yield of up to 40% more material in the statement.
Here, we will view what happens when an analyst's original work showed both deception and guilt, only to revisit the statement under the new presupposition: guilt.
"Guilty Analysis", if correct, allows the reader/analyst to enter into the reality of what actually happened in the event.
If the original analysis is correct, and the subject "did it", the revisitation of the statement is now done with a new and very different presupposition: guilt.
In case I have lost anyone, we are moving towards new territory for many of you.
1. When an analyst does statement analysis, the only thing he wants to know about the subject is the accusation, but nothing more. Nothing.
2. When the analyst/reader approaches the statement, it must be done with prejudice. The analyst must not approach it from the point of neutrality. The analyst must, if he wishes to catch deception, must begin the work prejudiced; that is, with a slanted opinion that the subject is telling the truth. This way, if the subject is truthful, nothing will be noticed and there are no feathers ruffled. Everything flows smoothly, and nothing is noticed, so the conclusion is: No unexpected words = truth.
But as the analyst works his way through and finds things not fitting his theory of truth, and encounters unexpected words, he is able to see the deception.
Deception is seen by those who allow themselves to be 'surprised' by the words of the subject.
This is why suspicious minded people cannot do analysis. They cannot presuppose truthfulness, therefore, they cannot be 'surprised' by the unexpected.
"Guilty Analysis" is when statement analysis has concluded deception and the guilt of the subject, and the same statements are now re-analyzed from the presupposition of guilt.
If the subject has given a statement about "what happened" and the analysis has shown conclusively that the subject did it, it is possible, via statement analysis, of entering into the subject's internal "camera" and literally seeing what took place in the crime.
I have, thus far, sought to explain this principle in 2 posts. I am not certain that I have expressed it well enough for most readers to understand and would appreciate reflective posts so I may know if I have made this clear before we begin "guilty analysis" work.
The reason for the caveat is simple: "guilty analysis" can be misinterpreted as "poor statement analysis" if the reader does not understand that statement analysis was previously done.
In entering into guilty analysis the reader is confronted with starkness of what happened. It is often unpleasant.