We all love to read analysis before the news and see how accurate the analysis was when the story breaks. It is also useful for instruction to review stories and look back upon the wording to facilitate learning.
Consider the Mittendorf case alongside the case of DeOrr Kunz.
The husband of Nicole used distancing language from his wife.
DeOrr and wife used distancing language.
The husband of Nicole praised police while they had failed to find her.
DeOrr praised officials who failed to find his son.
The husband of Nicole asked for prayer for her family and the searchers. He did not show much concern for his wife.
DeOrr spoke at length overly praising law enforcement while expressing no concern for his missing toddler.
Both showed little or no concern, indicating knowledge of death. In the husband's case, knowledge from law enforcement (he is LE) and knowledge of mental health issues can be what was behind these things. Context is key.
In the case of Kunz, the distancing language combined with some specific deception indicators; knowledge that the missing person was dead. With Kunz' interview, deception jumps at the reader. Those who saw deception in Mittendorf case were reading deception into it, rather than being guided by the statement.
We note that the sensitivity of the husband appears to be the knowledge he held.
The distancing language --bad marriage and possible acute depression on her part is appropriately expressed, especially if she made it clear that she was not going to remain with him.
The lack of prayer for her--knowledge of suicide suggests Protestant belief. (Roman Catholics pray for the dead; Protestants do not)
The praise of professional searchers---they are his co workers. In Kunz, the praise of officials was in great detail, overshadowing everything else (in volume alone) he had to say, including about his son.
The same things within DeOrr Kunz, yet in a different context and scope.
I cautioned readers publicly and privately about their understanding specifically pointing to context. I cited the "101 errors" and how the lack of formal training equates a lack of discipline in analysis.
I also cited the context of the Facebook page: he was having comments read to him; he, himself, guided the context. He praised "my department", taking ownership of it via the possessive pronoun. The 'comments read to him' was so important, that he included it in his statement.
He was a member of the department and his appreciation of them, as fellow laborers, is appropriate. This was not, for example, someone with no attachment to law enforcement seeking to ingratiate himself upon them, as was the case of DeOrr. DeOrr Kunz Sr's detail about the searchers, including the equipment, was something few parents would bother to remember or care about in light of a missing son. It not only indicated "tangent necessary", it "ate up time on the clock" of the interview. This was a control of pace that he felt necessary (he has solid intelligence and is someone familiar with deception) to avoid talking about his son.
The prayer request in the Mittendorf case and distancing language strongly suggest that he had an idea that she was suicidal. This is not the first case like this.
Recall the man who kept media attention high "searching" for his wife, while repeating signals of knowledge of her death. He knew she had committed suicide but while speaking to media, he withheld this and the sensitivity indicators were pronounced and picked up by many as he spoke. He appeared to enjoy his '15 minutes' while he was deliberately withholding the fact that he knew she had gone out to commit suicide. He allowed criminal speculation to remain high. It was manipulative on his part.
This is not the case here.
Context is always key.
Over the past several years, I have been given insight by those for whom Statement Analysis was a hobby that they enjoyed, though with some frustration. Each has, at some point within training, made clear that the formal training made a dramatic change in their viewpoint. Some have specifically stated "disciplines" (in various forms) while others have addressed principle, complexity, and competing principles needing rectification.
If you have any desire to move beyond hobbyist, especially those who have such drive to learn that their knowledge will assist them in a variety of employments, consider formal training. There are several routes to take.
Mark McClish's home course is very inexpensive and will start you on the introductory road of analysis.
I routinely mention, praise and refer readers and seminar attendants to www.lsiscan.com as well as to Wesley Clark's training, and some books worth studying. I'm not familiar with Welsey's specific course, but what I have read from him I like.
Discipline is key.
Once foundation is set, the work begins.
It is a mixed blessing and here is why:
if you are in law enforcement, what you learn in a 2 day seminar can be immediately applied.
This can be a great blessing.
Yet, in this application, you must have an experienced guide and if you do not, your first error may be your last, as your department will lose confidence quickly. If you are working with a professional, and take the path of guided study and dedication, you will soon find other investigators seeking you out for assistance.
I enjoy the following challenge:
When someone in law enforcement expresses doubt in the intense power of Statement Analysis, I ask him to write out a truthful statement about his most recent day off, and ask him to make it 1 place to 1 1/2 pages in length.
My only requirement is that it is truth.
I then inform the doubter that I will give to him (or her) the information he has revealed in his statement that he did not intend to release. I add in that, "it will contain personal and possibly embarrassing information."
Most decline the challenge. When they do decline, I give a few samples that adequately impress upon him that he made a wise decision.
This challenge has only been taken up a few times with each subject shocked at how much personal information was given.