In revisiting a previously analyzed statement, the analyst will find more material; up to 40% more in some cases.
I have always found "The "40% Theory" states that when an analyst goes back to a statement after a period of time, the statement will yield more information; up to 40% more, than what was originally gleaned.
How can this be?
In emotional cool down period of time, he may find that the statement yields up to 40% more information. Let's find out what is behind this theory, and why it has so often been proven true.
1. First go round.
When an analyst first gets a statement, he circles the pronouns. He does not "read" it, nor, at this point, is anything else of consequence. He has photocopied and filed the original, and has circled all pronouns. He then highlights the first entrance of the pronoun "we" for later checking.
2. He then moves to the highest levels of sensitivity with a blue high lighter: "so, since, therefore, because" (and so forth) and the verb "left" ("departed")
3. He then notes names, and changes in language....and now he is on his way, working through both the expected and unexpected and...
a portrait emerges.
It is with this emerging portrait that the analyst's emotions are engaged, especially if he is seeing deception.
As the portrait becomes clearer, the emotions often find 'rest' or satisfaction of knowing the truth.
It is here that 'sight' is limited.
A conclusion has come and is written up. Perhaps more work, including measuring time and pace, and scanning for expected words missing.
Why is there the possibility of a larger yield later?
It comes when the emotions are disengaged and the thought process of the analyst is removed from the statement. He must step back and away. It is excellent in cold cases.
How much time is needed?
This is difficult to answer. I don't know if there is any strict answer but I have found some helpful distance after 24 hours.
If I am completely removed (weeks, months) whereas the subject is not analyzed in other statements, I am often surprised how much more material is gleaned the second time around. This makes for fascinating revisitation of the archives of analysis.
There is another element in revisiting a statement:
When the analyst revisits it "cold", not only are words jumping out at him, but his perspective or focus is often on the 'missed' words, which, when combined with the prior analysis, an even deeper, clearer portrait emerges.
The initial analysis is confirmed while the 'new' material is now viewed with 'fresh eyes' and a compounding layer of understanding, taking the first analysis as a base layer.
The portrait that emerges now is deeper, more complex, and has 'more understanding' to it.
It makes even more sense.
Previously, the analyst's emotions were engaged, and even 'surprised' to learn "deception indicated" but now, dispassionately reviewing the analysis, there is an acceptance of deception, (the first analysis) compounded with an understanding, now, how the sentences "fit" into the scenario of deception.
It is now more than just "deception indicated" but now, point by point, it makes sense to the analyst.
Revisiting original work yields up to 40% more material to the analyst, especially when "Deception Indicated" was first concluded.
This is why you will often find old cases, previously analyzed, revisited.
A good place to test this theory is on the JonBenet 911 call.