"Why Did I Miss That? " in Analysis: Part One

Self hush

I am often asked, "Why did I miss that?" by an investigator.  I generally respond with the short answer first.

"Oh, me too. I didn't get it until my third pass."

There are many reasons why we have "misses" of important points in Statement Analysis.  In this, Part One, I will address how many times we should analyze a statement.

In Part Two, I will begin the break down of "Bias In Statement Analysis" and then on to "Emotional Misses" in analysis.

Let's begin with:

Q.  How many times should a statement be analyzed?

A.  Three basic times is the minimum for analysis.  These three times are called "basic" because it is always healthy to go back to a statement, but the three times here are done with a specific view.

I.  Presupposition of Innocence

II.  Presupposition of Guilt 

III.  Disconnected Analysis

I.  Presupposition of Innocence

This is not a moral or ethical view.  As you will see in "Analysis bias", Statement Analysis is not partisan, nor does it concern itself with politics.  It seeks the truth and evenly applied, it produces even results.

We go into a statement with the belief, ahead of reading it, that the subject is not only innocent, but is 100% truthful.  He "did not do it", and "he is guiding me in all truth."

This is a fancy way of saying:  Believe him.

The reason why many in law enforcement score poorly on exams of detecting deception (Dillingham) is due to the misplaced belief that "everyone is lying" due to becoming jaded from interacting, day by day, hour by hour, with criminals.  By presupposing truth, not only are we going to be guided by the words, but we set ourselves up for the 'awkward' fall of the "unexpected."

The "Fake Hate" that readers are familiar with is a good example.  In your first "go round" with the statement, presuppose.  In short, Ms. Rogers claimed that three masked men broke into her home, tied her down, carved hate slogans into her flesh, poured gasoline, lit the house on fire, and spray painted hate slogans in her basement.

464 words later, we knew our answer.  (Please see the full analysis on the blog if you are unfamiliar with the case).

a.  Charlie Rogers is a victim
b.  Charlie Rogers is truthful
c.  Charlie Rogers is someone I should empathize with

This way, I have now set myself up to hear certain words, such as "attack" and "blood" and "scared" and "fearful" and so on...

When I do not find these words, I am "surprised" by what she has said.  In this, there is a 'confrontation' of sorts, by words I was not expecting...words like, "game" and "pawn" and "event" and "not afraid" and so on.

The analysis, in round one, "tripped us up" with the "unexpected."  The words we thought we would hear, we did not.  Instead, we found words that were not in line what what we expected someone who has suffered such a horrific attack to use.  At the end of Round One, we concluded that she did not connect herself to the crime, hence, she was deceptive.

II.  Presupposition of Guilt 

Now, we are ready to go back to her statement with the basic premise or presupposition that she did it herself, and maybe had help, but in any case, she is deceptive about alleging a crime.

We now work our way through the analysis thinking to ourselves:

She is truthful, word by word, it is just that she left out that three men did not do this, therefore, the words she used may give insight into how she, or someone else with her, did this.

As we work through it, we are now "entering into her shoes" and she may give us "leaking" information on how it happened.  A good example of this is from the father of Dylan Redwine, who we found to be "deception indicated" in the disappearance of his son.

Mark Redwine.

"Uh, sure I'll take a polygraph..."

Statement Analysis showed deception on his part.  Once this conclusion is reached, his statement should then be analyzed again, specifically from the perspective of:

He did it.  His words are 100% truthful, it is just that he is leaving out that he did it.

Therefore, when we review his statement for analysis the second go round, we learn from his words that there was a confrontation of sorts, between him and his 13 year old son, as his language is combative.  Remember:  if he did it and is trying to avoid telling us he did it, even while describing his last hour with Dylan, he will struggle to do so without "leaking" out details of his crime.  Dillingham reports it this way:  a suspect in a robbery avoided confession, instead, talked on and on about his fishing, including his favorite fishing hole.  It took awhile, but eventually, it dawned upon the Interviewer to get divers to that fishing spot where...surprise, surprise, the stolen goods were hidden.

Why did Cindy Anthony kick out searcher Tim Miller?

"George and I don't believe Caylee's in the woods or anything."

She was conflicted.

She wanted Tim Miller and Texas Equasearch to fly to Florida so that the Anthony family could appear "cooperative" in finding missing Caylee Anthony, without actually finding her, which would lead to murder accusations.  So, she had Miller and company go through major expense of moving equipment and horses to Florida, and when he started asking too many "tough" questions like, "Where should we begin?", Cindy threw him out of the home.

Then, she needed to give some excuse to waiting media.

Her brain knew several things:

a.  Caylee's dead
b.  Casey did it.
c.  Caylee's in the woods, down the block from my home.
d.  I have to get Tim Miller out of here before he finds her.
e.  I can't let everyone know what is going on in my brain
f.  I think I'd like to get a new tattoo with George

So, with her brain running at full steam, she spoke, without notes, to the media.  She did not want to be alone in her guilt, so she said,

"George and I", using both of them:

"don't think", which is in the negative, making it, for us, in analysis, "very important"

"Caylee's in the woods"

"Caylee's in the woods"

"Caylee's in the woods"

Oops.  That pesky brain just leaked it out.

Caylee was found in the woods, less than a half mile from the home.

Analyzing her "as a deceptive person" should have screamed at investigators to scour those woods.

The first round of analysis is to do it thinking that the person did not do it and to believe every word in the statement.  Then, if deception is indicated:
the second round is done thinking the person did it, but that every word is still true and going to guide us and that only missing from the statement is "I did it."

III.  Disconnected Analysis 

This is where an investigator says to me, "Why did I miss that one point?" and I can agree:  I missed it, too, but I knew to go back to the statement with an emotional and intellectual disconnect.  This is where the "40% rule" comes to play (LSI) where the same statement will now yield up to 40% more information to the same analyst.

The trick to it is to

walk away from it.
Engage yourself in something else.

Your mind is made up; you've seen deception and you now have "emotional blinders" on; your  focus is one dimensional.  You need to "break" the connection, and have the statement "feel cold" to you.

A good example of this is the shooting by Chief William McCollum of his wife, Maggie.

My first analysis caused "confrontation" as I presupposed that the gun was not only accidentally engaged, but that it was accidentally left on the bed when they went to sleep.

The statement did not fit my theory of innocence (presupposition) that I began with.

My next go round meant analyzing it as if he did it.  This was a comfortable fit.

Yet, the third (and subsequent) analysis was after I had stopped thinking about it, and had literally moved on to other statements.  (You can accomplish this simply by reading the news websites and "changing" the direction of your brain.  Engage the intellect in something rigorous unrelated.  I find chess to help me with this, while at other times, reading about sports might help.  Go for a walk, have a hot chocolate, play with the dog, etc).

What yield did subsequent analysis produce?

Something very important that I missed initially.

Maggie McCollum, shooting victim 

Chief McCollum was deceptive in the call.  I think this is the most extreme distancing language I have analyzed between husband and wife.
He made it through an entire 911 call while she lay bleeding to death, without once using her name, the pronoun "my", or the word "wife."

This was not just distancing language, but extreme distancing language.  When coupled with passivity regarding the weapon and avoiding ownership of the weapon (something police do not do, and something a weapons trainer himself would not do) the review of the analysis brought me a clearer picture of what happened, including the earlier threat that brought that gun to the bed.

Anger.

The avoidance of his wife's name, her title, and the possessive pronoun "my" was due to anger.

He was angry that he was in this position, as chief of police, to be calling 911 on her behalf.  He burned in anger, while she lay bleeding to death, worrying about his own career.

He did not want this known in the call, yet it was his avoidance of common words, itself, that told us that this was something that took place deliberately, and not without passion.

Anger.

A minimum of three rounds of analysis should be done on any important statement.

Next: bias in analysis and how to deal with hit.