Crime analysts have traditionally received little guidance from academic researchers in key tasks in the analysis process, specifically the testing of multiple hypotheses and evaluating evidence in a scientific fashion. This article attempts to fill this gap by outlining a method (the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses) of systematically analysing multiple explanations for crime problems. The method is systematic, avoids many cognitive errors common in analysis, and is explicit. It is argued that the implementation of this approach makes analytic products audit-able, the reasoning underpinning them transparent, and provides intelligence managers a rational professional development tool for individual analysts.