Low cost brand new custom PC systems from £200.

Rennie Mackintosh Gifts

This chapter will discuss how to reach a consensus agreement as to what is likely to have happened to the subject.

The reason for the subject becoming lost is an important factor to consider as it may lend direction to the search. It may even rule out a lost person search entirely, although unlikely.

“Any scenario which has a non trivial possibility of being valid, as estimated by the search planners, should be included in the analysis”

Ken Hill 1992

He went onto say that any scenario that has a 10% chance of being valid should be included and that 2 or 3 scenarios would probably be reasonable for most searches.

It must be remembered that we are considering the possibilities of what has happened to the subject, i.e. what has occurred to the subject which has led to him/her becoming lost:

The scenario may start off as one but change as the investigation and search progress. For example, a lost child report may become a criminal investigation if information substantiating an abduction is received.

In the last point mentioned above regarding whether the report ‘fits’ the ‘concept’, an example here would be a report of a subject getting into there motor vehicle and driving off and not returning. Such a person may be a missing person or even a despondent one but other methods will have to be utilised to find the vehicle first. Once located, it may well be we can use that as a point last seen from which to plan our search and plot our data on the map. Of, course, if the car was found somewhere like an airport long stay car park other enquiries would be more suitable initially. If found abandoned in the middle of isolated moorland or near cliff tops then the ‘concept’ would seem to fit.

A reasonable conclusion is trying to be reached about what has happened to the subject, i.e. why are they missing?

The search management team will collect, analyse and consider all the available information obtained from the investigation and profile building processes in order to come up with some scenario options.

To attach relative values to these deliberations we will need to document this in the form of a scenario consensus worksheet. The reasons for and against the need to attach a mathematical value will be discussed later. The following explains the verbal weighting to number values. For this we use values 1 – 9.

9 -        Most likely

8 -

7 -        Likely

6 -

5 -        Even chance

4 -

3 -        Unlikely

2 -

1 -        Least likely

SCENARIO CONSENSUS WORKSHEET

1. Insert evaluator names in left column

2. Carefully record each evaluator’s likelihood values for each scenario. There is room on the sheet for up to 6 scenarios (A – F).

3. Add each scenario column and put this sum in the ‘subtotal down’ space at the bottom of each column.

4 .Add the totals for all of the columns. This value now becomes the denominator for the fraction that will be used to determine the scenario weight.

5. Calculate scenario weights by dividing each ‘subtotal down’ figure under each scenario column by the total of all scenario weights. (Subtotal down divided by total of all evaluator weights =weight for each scenario, expressed as a %)

Date……….          Mission#........       Op Period……     Time……..

The above is an example of a completed consensus worksheet. It illustrates the simple method of attributing mathematical values to possible and considered scenarios.

There is, of course, one big question:

WHY ARE WE GIVING SCENARIOS ACTUAL VALUES?

Another way of saying this is “why bother?”

Mathematical values can later be used to assist in assigning a consensus Probability of Area – POA. More of this POA later. Suffice to say at this time that where a search is to be fully documented using fully calculated percentages then these values are required as that process.

This handbook will only touch on fully computed mathematical values (a very big sigh of relief is heard!!) It is rare for many searches to require such ‘number-crunching’. Indeed many proponents of lost person search philosophy actually argue that there is no need ever.

The need to assign mathematical values to all aspects of lost person searches is limited so it would seem sensible to concentrate on other matters such as lost person behaviour. Where such computations are thought necessary always refer to a POLSA

Supporters of assigning values argue that it is a more complete documentary record of the search and lends greater justification to decisions and directions. However, it can be easily argued that the levels of documentation already discussed in this handbook are sufficient.

This handbook is designed for the search manager in early stages of the search. The need to calculate limited probabilities is discussed in other areas, but these will be limited to those absolutely necessary.

Even if probability estimations are not used and members of the search planning team merely brainstorm potential scenarios, experience tells us that one of the hypothetical possibilities will be close to the reality.

DISCLAIMER

This site, whilst created from the perspective of a police officer, is a personal work. It does not necessarily represent the views or policy of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary.

The contents of this site are written in good faith, however the author can accept no responsibility for any loss, harm or damage howsoever caused by the use of content from this site.

You may copy and re-distribute content from this site provided the above disclaimer clearly accompanies any copy. The content of this site is the copyright of Michael H Rose and any copies or distribution of the contents must be accompanied with the copyright details and acknowledgement of the author