Thursday, January 12, 2017

"The First 100": Experience in Statement Analysis

Even with the most talented, there is still no substitute to be found anywhere, including in hard work, for experience in training analysis

Something marvelous happens over time in analysis.  Even the most talented and intellectual and dedicated cannot overcome Father Time's mandate.  

Although there are so many reasons and specific elements of need that can only come through experience, here is one to consider. 

When it comes to "the expected", it is based upon our own projection initially. 

We are not always on target...various personal issues, experiences, opinions, etc. 

Then, we have statements that are similar...lots of them and these are analyzed to conclusion and we know the truth.  This is the "expected" data base in our heads.  

After thousands of statements, our "expected" becomes much sharper, stronger and accurate.  

As you continue in training, it will (and is!) coming along.  You must be exposed to team training where other, sometimes very experienced analysts (meaning hundreds or even thousands of statements over many years AND that inner data base I referenced come into play) will give you a slightly different perspective.  

This slight difference could make your analysis turn in a new direction, within a statement.  

There is no substitute for the passing of time actively working statements with others and getting either verification of the analysis or the use of statements where the outcome is known by the instructor.  

In a team setting, you may get other analysts, each with his own inner 'data base' and see how quickly a consensus can arise.  Homicides, for example, have their own 'language' as do so many other fields of analysis.  

Consider the learning process for a 40 year old. 

He has been using "dulled listening" his entire life. It is, in effect, a survival tool.  Listening carefully to every thing everyone says would be unsustainable.  

He then learns principles and begins to apply them in statements where the outcome is known.  This may be through a confession or conviction, polygraph, etc, but even details are known so his work may be reviewed.  

By the time he has completed a thorough course, he may have analyzed 50 statements, both short and long.  This is good. 

With enrollment in the complete class he was invited to one free live training session with, perhaps, 6-12 other analysts.  

After an introduction and possibly a short lesson, the team is now working, live at Go To Meeting, on an actual statement with a purpose:  to detect deception, to learn content (what happened) and, dependent upon the team and statement, a strong profile of the subject's background, experiences, priority and personality traits.  There may have even been a handwriting analyst weighing in. 

Let's say there were 6 other analysts present:

Analyst A has been investigating for 30 years and has been actively analyzing for several years and has about 200 statements analyzed. His dominant analysis is homicide

Analyst B has been investigating for 10 years but has been actively analyzing for almost the entire 10 years and has been instructing for the past 4 years and has easily more than 1,200 statements.  His work in Sex Crimes as given him much experience in sexual assault statements.  

Analyst C has been analyzing for 2 years, is a psychology expert and has about 100 statements analyzed, including the last 6 months analyzing many statements within the medical and social sciences field. Her speciality is personality disorders in language that is emerging naturally by what she does. 

Analyst D has been in business for 20 years, interviewing for employment and has been analyzing 4 years, with several hundred statements done, but many of them employment or business related.  He is the "go to" on business deception, including within negotiations, as well as having a very solid grasp on the "need to persuade" difference in employment than in criminal.  

Analyst E is in security, loss prevention and shrinkage.  He has been in the field 5 years, analyzing 3 years, has about 175 statements analyzed, with theft being something he is most familiar with.  

Analyst F is an insurance investigator who specializes in insurance fraud.  She is new to investigations and new to analysis, but already has more than 75 statements. Prior to this she had done medical fraud investigations for the state.  She took to training readily as it affirmed her own instincts.  

Now, our new analyst is eager to learn, has done very well in the complete statement analysis course.  He can cite principle, explain it to a non-trained person, and is now being exposed to a new statement, with a moderator instructing, and a team of 6 analysts.  The instructor analyzes full time, all day, every day, for years.  

Each has been working the same statements from their courses, but then statements within their own field.  

There is no possible way for the new analysts to know "the expected language" of each setting above, but by continuing to study and joining a team, he  is now exposed to other dedicated professionals who are not competing against him, but working with him, as a fellow team analyst, for a common goal. 

He now benefits from thousands of statements in various fields where jargon, regionalism, varying intellects, mental health and innumerable variables enter for him to learn from. 

Getting to the point of having analyzes one's first 100 statements is a real turning point.  

By this time, you have had gained indispensable experience from working with other professionals and have shared with them your own experiences in life. 

There is no substitute for the passing of time in experience. 

"La experiencia es la mejor maestra. "

1 comment:

PJ said...

That is a perfectly concise and logical explanation of one of the ways your field of statement analysis self regulates with checks and balance, always with the goal of clarity and accuracy. Perhaps that is one of the biggest causes of distrust and dissension within our political system. Sharing and cooperation are taught in school, but are seemingly absent in the political arena. Instead of working together, each drawing upon their own limited or vast experience, toward the common goal of an efficiently run governmental body and a healthy, prosperous, well maintained and defended nation, they work at cross purposes to assert their own agenda into the process. This has resulted in a quagmire of national dissonance that threatens our country and our society with destruction.