Friday, October 7, 2016
The "Knowledge" of Advanced Analysis
"How is it that you know more than we do on this case?"
In Advanced Statement Analysis, the analyst/investigator has gone long past "deception indicated" and has moved into:
1. Content Analysis
2. Linguistic Psychological Profiling
What may he now know?
Let's compare this to "brainstorming" with multiple investigators who have all come to the table with various contributions from their investigation into the case. They seek to have everything, from the interviewers to the scientists to the blood-spatter experts, to the lab results, to the...
all to come together for a cohesive opinion.
This is to be compared to what the analyst/investigator may know about the case only from the words.
A. The subject is deceitful. He will not pass a polygraph regarding the allegation.
B. Where the subject is deceitful. Within the statement the analyst/investigator may now know precisely where, in the statement's timeline, deception is found.
Not only is he filled with resolve and confidence before the interview, greatly increasing his chance of a confession, he knows where to aim his questions, and what specific language to employ. Subjects are most likely to confess when they know the investigator knows the truth, and when they are put in a position of 'psychological familiarity of comfort' by using the very words the subject has used.
Not only does this avoid misinterpretation of wording (and is legally sound), but it has a disarming effect as the words used are the same words the subject has used since childhood. Confession/Admission is now much more likely.
C. The analyst/investigator now knows content. This is the lengthy bridge that is crossed between Statement Analysis training and Advanced Analysis. Upon this bridge is the useful information where the analyst/investigator:
is able to see what happened.
He is now able to look at the reliable sentences within a deceptive statement and put many pieces of the puzzle together.
This often brings to light the forensics of the case (the physical events that took place) allowing for motive to suggest itself.
The analyst/investigator now 'knows':
*The subject is deceptive
*The subject did it
*Many details on how he did it
*Motive on why he did it
But now, the portrait comes together within the profile. The profile of the subject reveals four distinct elements:
I. His Priorities
II. His Background
III. His Experiences
IV. His Personality Type
The analyst/investigator now knows the subject. He knows him; not just how he thinks, but why he thinks and says the things he does.
Thus comes a startling conclusion:
Often times, the analyst knows more about the case than the actual investigators.
This has happened time and time again, including in cold case investigations, and when it happens,
the investigators enthusiastically enter Statement Analysis training and become addicted to learning.
The shock can be overwhelming.
In live cases, the investigators often go out on the new trail and verify the findings of analysis.
Here are some actual unnamed cases for examples that were confirmed by investigators who were either given analysis, or who worked with analysts.
"This subjects' motive is greed. I don't know how greed plays into it, but it is greed."
It was later learned that the subject sought to become a joint owner of property, and was refused and turned deadly violent. Without a living victim to assert this; without analysis, it may not have ever been known as the subject had been long cleared of the crime.
"He has a history of violence against pets", something that may not have been known, is suddenly sought and found by collateral interviews armed with specific questions such as,
"Did he grow up with pets?" which surprised the collateral contact at first, but then prompted concern and recall of abuse. This, too, was verified through yet another collateral contact.
"He has a history of abusing women. It matters not if it is on record. Find collaterals and ask" only to find women who verified this claim with strong voice.
"He has a trauma history of sexual abuse in childhood" which was not only unknown, but the lack of this left a vacuum in understanding.
"He is a sexual predator. This is not his first victim. You will find other victims of the same approximate age and sophistication."
Years ago, a state investigator said, "you know more about the case than we the investigators do..."
This is commonly asserted today, especially when the subject's background experiences are combined with his personality traits, stitched together for the overall strategy of the interview.
"Do not directly confront him, or the interview ends!" or
"Let him dominate and humiliate you in the interview. He will give it all away."
"You must bring him to confrontation. Without it, he will not yield. His military background, low in the pecking order in high school, and his poor impulse control and ego will come together and give you everything you need to know about what happened..."
'The subject is male, early 40's, white, advanced college education, well above average in intelligence, with experience in engineering. His narcissistic style of lying is a contempt he can barely control. Everything about him is control. Ego. His kids will tell you he barely ever disciplined them, but they lived in fear just the same and if he did hit them, it was memorable, but look for older kids to talk about control with a look or words. He has zero tolerance for those less intelligent than himself and as a supervisor, he's likely lied or falsified records just to get rid of subordinates he didn't want. He is a 'pragmatic liar' to get what he wants. He has a closet addiction to opiates and he takes them not just because he is physically dependent, he has major depression and passive/aggressive rage. If a female investigator is used, he will feel so insulted that his contempt will cause him to ignore her and underestimate her. Therefore, she must be sharp and ready to pounce when he is deceptive. He will be overconfident. Let him boast...'
Here is a common one:
"Search his computer." which is often met with,
"Come on! Where do you see that in his language?" which, once explained is often followed by, "how do I possibly get a search warrant for this?"
We study the language of addiction, the language of adult sufferers of childhood sexual abuse, PTSD, and we also study the language of sexual perversion.
When we see the language of pornography and an increase in emotion over physical domination, it is a very bad combination. The urging to "search his computer" regarding pornography, child pornography and bestiality comes from the subject's language. He 'tells' us to search his computer.
When an investigator is shocked that the analysis has produced a more complete picture of what has happened than the on-the-ground investigators, he is hooked.
When an investigator becomes an analyst studying advanced techniques, he becomes an extremely valuable asset to his department and to society as a whole. He now goes into an interview empowered by knowledge, and all of his earlier training and experiences, including body language analysis, kicks in to one synthesizing event where he is best situated to get the subject to confess.
The analysis frequently reveals more about a case than the actual investigators, dependent upon sample size.
Investigators trained in advanced techniques, routinely say this, particularly when they are asked to assist their fellow investigators.
When investigators receive and prosper under training, it is a powerful force for successful prosecution as it puts assistant district attorneys in a position of confidence.