Sunday, April 13, 2014
Statement Analysis: Letting it Go
I hope this helps explain why some analysis is not pursued vigorously. It is a personal judgement call on my part, as author of the blog, and it varies from case to case.
When a crime has taken place, and the subject has been deceptive, it is important to learn if the subject is being deceptive about the crime itself. There are times in investigations where a subject has written a statement about the event, and has been indicated for deception, except that the deception was not about the allegation.
On one such case, a few years ago, a company had reported missing money, and the difficult issue was that there was an unknown number of people who had access to the missing money, including sub contractors, and visitors to the building. This means that even if all the workers write out statements, the thief could still have been someone else who is not known, and who has not written out a statement.
In cases where the missing money had to be one of __ number of workers, the written statement is going to find out who took the money. This is the norm.
In the above case, I asked for assistance in my analysis, for I had seen deception, but it did not appear to be related to the thief.
I sent the statement to LSI.
SCAN is the place where it all begins, and is the foundation for all Statement Analysis. I sent the statement seeking a review of my work and received back the answer that I had, indeed, uncovered deception, but that something else had taken place. I was instructed to inquire if another theft had taken place.
When I spoke to the company, I learned that there had been, recently, a break in and robbery of high tech equipment where there appeared to be no forced entry.
I approached the subject who agreed to take a polygraph but, she said, only if the questions were about "this" theft (the theft of money).
In reviewing statements for companies, I have often found deception within the statements, though unrelated to the allegation.
There are those, for example, who will reveal that they lied about time off, or stole time from their employer, or felt a need to brag up poor work; all points of sensitivity, but all unrelated to the allegation.
This is where the Analytical Interviewing shines: it allows the subject to choose his own words, define these words, and for the innocent to assert so, even while alerting employers to other problems that need to be addressed.
Recently, a tragedy took place in which two children died. The mother's language indicated sensitivity about leaving them with her own mother. The mother of the deceased certainly appeared to have questions, within herself, about her choice to leave her toddlers with their grandmother, and she will be haunted for the rest of her life.
She would not need to read analysis of her words here, as it will serve no purpose even in justice for the toddlers.
Yes, there is a story behind the words and it could be anything from a grandmother who fell asleep while being ill, right on up to substance abuse and so on, but there are just times when there is no purpose to pursue analysis.
Years ago, a boy went missing and his mother's words indicated sensitivity about leaving him in the case of his father and step mother. To analyze her words would have meant nothing but added pain. It would not help the case. Even a letter from the mother, open the public, was left unanalyzed.
Terry Elvis' pain is acute and his words about his own daughter showed, from the beginning, veracity. Yet there are those who continue to have their malicious comments deleted here as the comments are intended to add to the family's pain.
Trista Reynolds is another of whom a small group of DiPietro supporters delight in posting her shortcomings in life for the whole world to see. Statement Analysis of Trista Reynolds showed that she did not know what happened to Baby Ayla, and she had no guilty knowledge of where Ayla was. Justin DiPietro showed guilty knowledge of Ayla's death.
"Letting it go" means just that; there is no purpose in further analysis.
Sometimes, this is best.
Recall the "Zumba" scandal in Maine. The husband of the prostitute suffered many things and the more he spoke...well, you get the picture.
Later on, the words can be taken, long after the case is forgotten, and be useful for instruction, with the names redacted. This is different.
For now, readers, use discretion and wisdom, even when analyzing comments.