Tuesday, December 20, 2016
The Three Rounds of Analysis
so, how do you people do this stuff?
This has been a recurring question posed, year by year, after any widely publicized case is analyzed. The exposure generally leads to law enforcement professionals seeking, even on their own, advanced training as well as many different professionals seeking initial training.
What is it about training that allows for at or near 100% accuracy?
This may help understanding.
"The Three Rounds of Analysis"
"The Three, Nay, Four Rounds of Analysis"
There is a 'best practice' done by most analysts where their work is given to another analyst for 2nd opinion. Most always this leads to deeper content. It is a very natural outworking of the enforced humility that this work requires, besides the analysts' desire for running at 100% or near 100% accuracy. It is 'natural' and 'enforced' because in our concentration, a single "trail" or "linguistic scent" can be followed at a time by a single person.
In our Complete Statement Analysis Course, the expectation is that the course is completed at home, in no shorter time than 6 months. The need for absorption, practice, correction, and application often end up at a full 12 months. This also leads to the magic of team analysis which, when accompanying formal training, puts into practice all that has been learned, and enables the analyst to see the results.
Generally, 6 - 12 months is the expected time frame, with 6 months the minimum. Earlier than that is just rushing which will not bring success.
The Advanced Course is lengthy and will not be likely be completed in under 12 months, as it is requires much more work submitted.
It is a commitment to not only advanced and new techniques, but to volume of practice and greater content analysis while moving towards psychological profiling. This is to allow the personality to develop through the language or "psycho-linguistic profiling" followed by Analytical Interviewing; the legally sound interview based upon the analysis conclusion. This is why even 'celebrity' statements are analyzed, along with tweets, emails, and text messages. The need for such is quickly realized in employment analysis where companies are protected from theft and exploitation. The common vernacular must be covered.
This coincides with the minimum number of hours (60) and (120) of live team analysis for certification. The Advanced requires submission of a thesis paper and approval from 3 professionals.
Round One: Lie Detection
The analyst goes into the statement presupposing that the subject is 100% truthful, and de facto innocent. This is not a moral lesson but a technique used to detect deception. Here, the analyst ignores the person (subject) but only analyzes the statement, as if the person is "dead" to them; ignoring case files and external details whenever possible and practicable.
The puzzle is viewed by the presupposition of innocence. This is the narrative going into the analysis. It must fit. It must be, like a puzzle, perfectly fitting pieces, or reasonably close to it.
If the puzzle does not fit it must be so awkward and ill fitting that the analyst is overwhelmed by the inability to make this statement understood in innocence because the analyst is looking at:
This is no "straight face test" or "smell test" that can, when appropriately applied, bring up to a 70% success rate.
For the statement analyst, 70% success is a failure.
The 'puzzle' could not be made right, no matter how we tried to dull the edges of the pieces. It is a portrait that is worse than Dorian Gray and no manner of "linguistic gymnastics" is going to fit.
Wooden Jigsaw Puzzle
This is seen in the McCann case where one presupposes a kidnapping. The end result is this:
Either you conclude deception or you are forced to say the very words that the McCanns were unwilling to say, in order to make the puzzle fit.
In other words, either you conclude that the pieces do not fit, or you spend a great deal of time and effort, not sanding the pieces, but actually getting out the jigsaw and cutting the wood up in a grotesque attempt to make the puzzle complete. Even when this is accomplished, the portrait is, itself, aesthetically displeasing.
Deception is, itself, ugly or "awkward" in the words of those with intuition at detecting deception.
We see this where spokesmen or spokeswomen for politicians try to cover or "explain away" a lie the way a defense attorney may try to suspend logic itself, to clear the guilty. It 'feels' ugly to the audience, which is, itself, insulting.
This is the contempt that liars feel towards their intended audience: 'you are too ignorant to catch me. I am your superior.'
It is why defense attorneys try to keep guilty clients off television, and not left to answer questions by police or journalists. They know that their client's guilt will emerge via the words. They recognize that so many fabricators of reality have such self confidence that it is difficult to muzzle them. The liar is not only self assured (and well practiced) but has a desire to control information.
The Analysis is complete. The subject has "forced" us to know that he or she is deceptive.
When complete statement analysis is done so that a conclusion presents itself, there is a now dramatic change in our work. For example, the analyst now knows that the subject is guilty and goes into the next analysis:
he or she goes back into the statement with the presupposition of guilt and does:
Round Two: Content Analysis.
This is where the analyst seeks detail of what happened, when it happened, where it happened and why it happened.
The puzzle is viewed by guilt. We now know he did it because we have detected his deception.
The entire process is repeated, this time with the presupposition of guilt in which we ask, sentence by sentence: why did he feel the need to say this?
What happened here?
What happened there?
Since we 'know' he did it (he talked us into this position), we now see that since 90% of deception is by withheld information, we find a great deal of content of reliable information about what happened in the statement!
When someone says "I know she is lying; her lips are moving" and dismisses the statement, they are, literally, setting aside the most valuable portion of the statement for the investigator: learning how he did it, when he did it, and why he did it.
Round Three: Resucitating the Subject
Lastly, there is one more round of analysis. The person (subject) has been as if "dead" to us.
We now bring him back to life.
We already know he did it, how he did it, and when he did it, and why, perhaps, he did it, but now, we want to know him, for himself. This will not only strengthen the "why", or motive of the crime, but in getting to know him, we will now know how to approach him in the interview.
The analyst goes back to the same statement, presupposing guilt, having insight into what, when, where, etc, and now focuses solely upon
The subject's words reveal
1. Their background
2. Their experiences in life
3. Their priority or priorities
4. Their personality traits, including here, narcissistic like behavior.
This is completely separate from the original "statement analysis" of lie detection; it is separate from the "content analysis" of the details of the crime.
We now want to get to know him.
The three rounds precludes second opinion in the count, as this is most often done regardless of whether or not deeper analysis is required.
This has even revealed a history of unsolved crimes committed by the subject.
With the Dept of Justice telling us that 40% of those who stole from their workplace admitting that they planned this during the hiring process, we now can identify, before hiring, those most likely to steal.
Consider that this 2001 statistic does not include today's most popular and successful form of theft:
It is popular and if it is "politically correct", it is profitable.
A religious bakery owner declines to bake a gay for a SSA wedding and is sued into bankruptcy, labeled as "bigots, haters, phobia sufferers, deplorables, etc", with universal condemnation of political elites and main stream media. The SSA couple could have simply gone to a non religious bakery but instead chose deliberately to exploit.
A Maine fuel delivery man tells customers who voted for a particular candidate that he will no longer be delivering fuel to them should they exercise their freedom to say who they voted for. This is a county that voted against fuel owner's candidate and is a county where the average overnight low temperature is about 0 F.
He is hailed for his "freedom to choose" his own customers or is dealt softly by MSM.
There are those who will apply for a job with one purpose in mind: exploitation.
While there have always been those who apply for a job and will "fall" on the job, this is small change compared to the more sophisticated "fake hate" types in which they apply for a job, even stating in writing, "no accommodations needed" only to make demands as soon as the probationary period is over. They know the demands will not be met and have intended this before being hired.
We catch them, using statement analysis, before they even get interviewed.
With employment analysis and the pyscho-linguistic profiling, if we ignore common vernacular in language (such as "celebrity analysis", social media, tweets, etc), we will falter, particularly in employment analysis. There is not "dignity" to protect in analysis with communication as much as many of us may hold little interest in the rants of celebrity. This common form of communication, including emoji, self-centeredness, abbreviations, etc, is necessary for the largest, most complete realm of analysis.
In short, do not disregard statement s just because they are not criminal, lest you leave yourself in capable of a much larger realm of analysis.
Where there is an expectation of being understood through language, analysis can and should be applied.
These are the three rounds of analysis:
1. Deception Detection presupposing innocence
2. Content Analysis based upon the conclusion of Round One
3. Profile: Getting to know a great detail about the subject.
The "fourth" round is not a round, but the deliberate seeking of a second opinion that is routine and 'best practice' by analysts.
Our "Complete Statement Analysis Course" is similar in material to what is presented in seminars, but has the advantage of working from your home, slowly and is intended to last at least 6 months, providing a strong foundation where you can be an expert in detecting deception.
Our "Live Training" is separate. It is cost-effective and allows you to join a team of analysts in actual crime solving, once per month, scheduled at the same day of the month, for the year.
Combining the two trainings, certification is available for successful completion and approval. The live online training is also approved for Continuing Educational Units, through the University of Maine, for professional licenses.
Successful completion of the Complete Statement Analysis course is a required prerequisite for the Advanced Course which brings the analyst to more content analysis, advanced techniques, Sexual Assault crimes, employment analysis and anonymous author identification.
Those who seek traction for their careers, or who look to 2017 for new, fresh insight, should consider the resolution to apply oneself and obtain excellence in a manner that impacts many fields of application.