Readers can find themselves frustrated with analysis as there are some inherent struggles that will exist; some remedial, but others will continue.
I. First, there is the "Mickey Mouse Analysis" that I label analysis that is entertaining, but not terribly difficult. This is something that readers love to see, particularly casual readers. It is accurate in terms of detecting deception, and often in a news case that has caught attention, making it
"Just tell us: is she lying or not?" is the common denominator. They are many books that tell you you can become an instant expert lie detector and they are entertaining, but the over simplifying of principle will lead to error. Even good analysis can have an entertainment value but there are limits.
What is not understood is that the analyst should not go beyond the analysis.
There are statements in which no strong conclusion is presented and the analyst should not make the conclusion that the statement, itself, refuses to make.
This bothers people who, by this, may be led into the "quick fix" sales pitch.
Errors come when we are not cautious.
One such error was in a case of a missing child in which I indicated the father for deception regarding his daughter's disappearance. Although the analysis was correct, qualification should have been added because the father did not kill his daughter; he was passed out (substance abuse) allowing her to wander off.
Another example is that is Leanne Bearden. The statements made by the husband showed distancing language while she was "missing." The distancing language he used was due to withholding information from the public who was searching, in that he knew she was suicidal. The ethics of this can be discussed by others, but the analyst should not go beyond the statement, no matter how 'entertaining' it may be to read. That is best left for entertainers, Facebook "psychics" and emboldened "anonymous" posters.
If we are not "demanded" by the statement to conclusion, I cannot make a conclusion.
Secondly, simplification is sometimes the only way to explain advanced analysis to the untrained.
What analysts conclude and work with one another, can be very different than what the public reads or hears. My work in the McCann case is, in my estimation in this category. What was published is accurate, but not terribly deep nor or challenging, but it is interesting, which is entertaining and rather easy to explain. There are portions that are not published here, but if submitted to law enforcement, will be included. This often addresses content and psycho-linguistic profile.
Third, if there is insufficient information on a case, I cannot analyze.
A good example is that of Sherri Papini.
This is a fascinating case and I could write articles speculating about what may have really happened, as well as motives, but I think this is unfair to readers because they hold to an expectation that I will have a strong conclusion as I do in "deception indicated" and "veracity indicated" cases. I am aware that readers are counting on accuracy here and even should I speculate and write, from the beginning, "this is speculation", it can too easily be seen as actual statement analysis, and not impression, guess work, or opinion.
I have refrained from writing about the case other than the clear statements that have emerged, including the letter offering a 'reward.'
I have yet to see a good news article where there was not heavy editing, which would only increase the possibility of error.
For training in your home or if you wish to host a seminar, please contact us through www.hyattanalysis.com for opportunities.
The training in your home for law enforcement, investigators, journalists, bloggers, human resources, therapists, and other professionals and it is thorough.
It includes 12 months of ongoing support. The expectation is a dedication of at least 6 months of study.
Without correction, reproof and team analysis, the path to accuracy is littered with the error of "guess work."
We establish a foundation for the professional, whether it be for private corporations or HIDTA intensive training, the detecting of deception must be at or near 100% accuracy.
Where are those who have been trained at home?
Some of the professions:
USA: Federal, State, local law enforcement, military, private attorneys, medial professionals, therapists, journalists, bloggers, sales professionals, insurance, students, human resources, independent business owners, security...