Friday, September 14, 2012

Guilty Analysis or Revisiting Analysis Part Two

Bar Harbor

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.

Next...actual cases.


Wdash2012 said...

This is very interesting and I think you've clarified that "guilty analysis" is not analysis assuming guilt, its analysis after guilt has been established. This gives the analysist the opportunity to relate the subject's statement to the crime in a more insightful way. I do think calling it "guilty analysis"will continue to be confusing for people though, as they may miss the true meaning if they don't read your explanation. I'm excited to learn more about this topic and for you to share some examples of "guilty analysis".

Tania Cadogan said...

I agree Peter.
It is one thing to learn the subjects personal dictionary, somthing which must be done before comning to a conclusion in an analysis.
The subject is dead, the statement is alive.
Now we take the next step and this is hard for the analyst, unpleasant even as far as horrific.

We step now into the psyche so to speak.
We seek now to understand the action behind the words, to step into their mind, see what they saw, feel,what they felt, relive the experience.
It is now a case of becoming a part of the subject, learning the ehy's and wherefores of why they did what they did.

The subject is alive as well as the statement

Many cannot take this step and i don't blame them especially in cases of crimes against children.

We have to watch our emotions, so the brain does the work not the emotions.
Those of a sensitive nature will find this particularly hard.
The analyst may also find it hard to step back after they have reviewed the analyst due to the feelings they experience.

The mind can be a dark and scary place when it involves serious crimes especially those against a child and not everyone has the inclination or the strength to be able to take that step as what is learned will have an affect mentally and emotionally.

When i analysed the sean phillips leter i felt the pull of his anger, the need to be in control, the desire for power.
As i read his letter i could see the anger which had built up and was still building, the selfishness and immaturity, i could visualise him pressing hard on the paper as he remembered, the tension in his body, the denial of guilt to himself. he might have committed the crime but it wasn't him it was Ariel, the phone, the world who was pulling his strings, he was the puppet not the puppetmaster.

I find having a vivid imagination helps me, i see it as on a screen.
In dreams i am able to pause, rewind and fast forward, i can be in the dream as a participant as well as as an observer at the same time, i can carry on a dream where i left off the next night if i enjoyed it, i can also change scenes and endings.
I always dream in color with sounds, smells and touch.
It's akin to having my own cinema with no one rustling or whispering. (i have woken myself up laughing on many an occasion)

I look forward to seeing the guilty analysis, could i suggest perhaps one where the subject has been found innocent (coerced confession perhaps) where we know the subject was innocent and thus see where the sensitive areas appear and what they are.

John Mc Gowan said...



I have notice when posting links the link is always in BLACK and has to be copied and pasted to access the said website,yet some links put up here are in BLUE and will take you straight to the said site.
Is this for certain sites or can anyone put up a direct link?

If so,does anyone know how to do it?

MissUnderstood said...

I thought I understood, until I read your last paragraph Hobnob lol.

We are to, the 1st time, enter the analysis presuming the truth is being told.

Deception may or may not be noted.

For this excercise, "Guilty Analysis", I think deception had to have been noted.

I'm not sure, but how could we do this on a subject that was actually innocent?

brosnanfan said...

So...we should be "as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves"?

We should approach analysis believing one is innocent until proven guilty; or perhaps with the presupposition that people are truthful until they show (speak) themselves untruthful?

Lis said...

I appreciate the explanation that the analyst does not want to know anything beyond the accusation at first. I found it difficult to analyze the Sean Phillips statement after knowing something of the circumstances; I kept thinking of the circumstances as I was reading, instead of just purely reading the words on the page. They were confusing enough, too!

Lis said...

If I'm understanding you correctly, Peter, first we analyze the statement believing the person is innocent, knowing nothing of the background information other than the accusation. After coming to a conclusion, we would want to wait an amount of time and revisit the analysis again? And finally, if we have been convinced of the subject's guilt, we re-examine the statement with a view for clues as to the nature of the crime?

Tania Cadogan said...

Hi John

Anyone can post a direct link to a website all you need is the bit of html code.

< a href="url " > Link text < / a >

Place the URL of the link you want to go to between the " "(where it says URL)
I had to add gaps so you could see the actual code otherwise it would have shown as link text in blue.
make sure there is no gap between the < a , url"> link text (can be a gap for link text as it is describing what the link leads to) and < / a >

Then you put what the link is called, the title where it says>link text< (between the 2 arrows) such as presenter nodding off, epic fail or whatever.

John Mc Gowan said...

Cheers hobs..

brosnanfan said...

I just watched the video; I didn't turn on the sound, just watched what was happening.

Oh yeah, he was totally sleeping. :)

brosnanfan said...

I promise you that I did not put this comment on the wrong post. I promise.

WDash2012 said...

Haha brosnanfan, repetition of I promise, deception indicated.

Anonymous said...

A good profit provider who is able to provide you with the perfect opportunity to subtly promote
your products. Along with providing links to product categories or subcategories, you should
be using Profit for your business is not ranking at the top and
bottom of page, Alt Tags in Pictures that are not relevant.
Her bogey-free round gave her a two-day total of 7-under 137.
This presents a number of web directories; thus attracts more traffic
to your article such as social media opportunities.

Feel free to surf to my homepage: search engine marketing firm

Anonymous said...

Personally, I thought of this when it came to the many
gamers I met online playing military action dance accessories.
Your character is a former police detective stuck in a rigged asylum.
An even more recent study by developmental psychologist Daphne Maurer made news
with research suggesting that people born with cataracts could improve their eyesight by
playing a first-person shooter game was developed in 2007.
To combat this growing problem, the review recommends a series of difficult choices
that impact the game's outcome.

My homepage - dance games xbox