Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Publication from the International Association of Interviewers | 2019 ISSUE 3 | © 2019 International Association of Interviewers certifiedinterviewer.com
FEATURED ARTICLELessons Learned from
Richmond’s Southside Stranglerby John Lowrey
LEGAL ASPECTS by David E Zulawski, CFI, CFE
ARTICLEAn Assessment of Investigative Practices
by Thomas F. McGreal, CFI
LETTER FROM THE EDITORby Cary Jones, CFI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4 FEATURED ARTICLE: Lessons Learned from Richmond’s Southside Strangler by John Lowery
8 LEGAL ASPECTS by David E Zulawski, CFI, CFE
9 CFI SPOTLIGHT EMILY KUHN & MADDIE WROBEL
10 CHAPTER UPDATES
11 AN ASSESSMENT OF INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICES, PART 1 by Thomas F. McGreal, CFI
14 CFIs ON THE MOVE
15 WELCOME NEW CFIs
16 VIDEO OF THE QUARTER by Tammy Clark, CFI, CFE
17 LETTER FROM THE EDITOR by Cary Jones, CFI
It’s hard to believe that fall is already here and we’re coming to the close of 2019. Those of you in the retail market are already looking forward to a busy time as the Christmas season approaches and thieves will be busy plying their trade. In the public sector this will also be an uptick in investigations as the organized retail criminals ready for the holiday season as well.
It’s not too early to consider your future training relating to interview and interrogation for next year. Each year the International Association of Interviewers focuses on an Elite Training Days in the spring to really hone an investigator’s interview skills with new and interesting ideas. 2020 will bring the Elite Training Days to the Nashville area on April 1-2 at the Nashville Music City Center. The Nashville Music City Center has graciously offered its facilities to host this powerful program.
As with the previous years’ programs, there will be our core of IAI Sponsors (CONTROLTEK, InstaKey, Protos Security, DTiQ, WZ) helping with the areas you most need it as well as several other Solution Partners providing the most advanced solutions to some of loss prevention’s, human resources’, audit and law enforcement’s most difficult problems. Their partnership with IAI and the elite CFIs has led to a powerful information filled program which is in its eight year. As always, continuing education credits will be given for attendance at the Conference.
We hope you’ll consider joining us at ETD and network with some of the top investigators in the business. We have already selected speakers for the 2020 program and anticipate a growing attendance. Bryan Barlow, CFI will discuss Trauma Interviewing, Dr. Brian Cutler will educate us on eyewitnesses, Julie Kratz will help us Lead like an Ally and Brett Ward, CFI from WZ will round out the lineup of speakers.
On a final note I hope you will read the section on Legal Aspects. We have had differing opinions from legal departments on how this should be applied and whether it matters if the person is hourly or salaried. Please make sure you have your legal department give you an opinion.
David E Zulawski, CFI, CFEChairman IAI Advisory Board
LETTER FROM THECHAIRMAN
IAI ADVISORY COMMITTEEJames Ballard, CFI, Elkhart Police [email protected]
Bryan Barlow, CFI, Chicago Police [email protected]
Don Berecz, CPA, CFE, CFI, Georgia Southern [email protected]
Ray Cotton, CFI, Wells [email protected]
Eric Chase, CFI, [email protected]
Joe Davis, CFI, [email protected]
Dan Doyle, CFI, Bealls [email protected]
Wayne Hoover, CFI, [email protected]
Cary Jones, CFI, [email protected]
David Lund, CFI, Dick’s Sporting [email protected]
Rick Manning, CFI, FBI (Ret.)[email protected]
Debbie Maples, CFI, Gap, [email protected]
Mike Marquis, CFI, [email protected]
Dr. David Matsumoto, [email protected]
Steven May, CFI, [email protected]
Chris [email protected]
John Millner, CFI, Illinois State Senator (Ret.)[email protected]
Melissa Mitchell, CFI, Lifeway Christian [email protected]
Walter Palmer, CFI, CAP [email protected]
Kathleen Smith, CFI, Albertson’[email protected]
Shane Sturman, CFI, [email protected]
Mark Sullivan, CFI, Grant [email protected]
Alan Tague, CFI, Dunham [email protected]
Douglas Wicklander, CFI, WZ (Ret.)[email protected]
David Zulawski, CFI, [email protected]
CFInsider | P4
Continued...
LESSONS LEARNED FROM RICHMOND’S SOUTHSIDE STRANGLER
by John Lowrey Inspector General Criminal Investigator Academy
My hometown of Richmond, Virginia is a medium-sized city located less than 100 miles south of Washington, DC. Formerly the capital of the Confederate States of America, today Richmond has a reputation as an easy-going Southern town with a college and arts culture that caters to tattooed Pabst Blue Ribbon drinking non-conformists and bearded skinny jean wearing hipsters. The city is home to a world class art school and is brimming with many excellent restaurants and breweries. In fact, the city is so replete with fashion conscious, counterculture denizens that many have characterized it as an East Coast version of Portland or Austin. Growing up in the relatively affluent West End of Richmond in the pre-Internet, pre-iPhone days of the 1980s, things were so seemingly relaxed and complacent that former residents can’t help but look back with nostalgia and fondness. Days were spent hanging out at the mall playing video games, watching movies from the comfortable embrace of the local cinema’s spring-loaded, plush purple seats, or shopping for the latest cassette tape at a nearby Peaches Records & Tapes. Kids and teenagers ranged relatively freely throughout their neighborhoods on bicycles, being told to come home for dinner when the neighbors’ houselights came on. However, on the other side of the city during that same time period, a parallel world existed that only penetrated the bubble of our suburban idyll via the large headlines of the local Richmond Times-Dispatch newspaper. What those news articles conveyed was that my hometown was beginning to earn a reputation as a very dangerous place to live, with random drive-by shootings becoming a regularity as the symptoms of the 1980s crack cocaine epidemic began to manifest themselves. From 1981 to 1986, the homicide rate in Richmond climbed 33%, making it the 7th most deadly city in the country per capita. The murders would eventually top out at 161 a few years later, making Richmond the second most dangerous city in the nation per capita and one mordantly nicknamed by its residents as “Murder Capital of the World.” At one point, things got so bad that the U.S.
Postal Service refused to deliver to certain parts of the city until ordered to resume service by a federal judge. And on top of this disquieting undercurrent of tumult and violence, a prowling phantom emerged in 1987 who began to terrorize the city in a manner that made its citizens buy guard dogs, install new deadbolts on their doors, and sleep with weapons under their pillows. An individual the press hauntingly nicknamed “The Southside Strangler.” In the autumn of that year, a series of brutal rapes and murders led law enforcement officials to believe that a serial killer was operating in the Richmond area. In a two-month period of time, two women and a 15 year-old girl were raped, tortured, and strangled in their own homes, with the perpetrator often fashioning ligatures in such a manner that the victims would choke themselves if they attempted to move or escape. The killer generally entered his victims’ homes by cutting through wire screens and climbing through windows, yet left no fingerprints, shoeprints, or other identifying clues except semen stains. Even more grisly was the realization that the killer had tortured some of his victims for hours, strangling them to the point of unconsciousness, then reviving them before strangling them again. Law enforcement officials were baffled as to who was committing these unspeakable acts until a tough-talking Arlington, Virginia detective named Joe Horgas was able to connect what was going on in Richmond to murders and rapes in his jurisdiction, and then eventually to a 25 year old convicted burglar he previously knew named Timothy Wilson Spencer. The story of how Spencer was eventually revealed as the Southside Strangler and Arlington’s masked rapist is detailed by True South Media and former Richmond journalist Richard Foster in a ten-part podcast entitled “Southern Nightmare.” Having lived and worked in Richmond during the period in which Spencer was striking terror into the city, Foster demonstrates through the podcast his
CFInsider | P5
innate understanding of the complexities and duality of Richmond (which becomes a character in its own right) in this informative and compelling podcast. Aside from utilizing his inside knowledge of what the city and its citizens were experiencing during that time frame, Foster and his team interviewed almost 50 individuals associated with the case in order to detail the crime spree, as well as show how the investigative techniques that we take for granted today were used in a revolutionary fashion to identify, arrest, and convict Spencer. Though we have seen astonishing leaps recently regarding the use of scientific law enforcement techniques to identify perpetrators, when the Southside Strangler was committing his one man rape and murder spree 30 years ago, law enforcement capabilities were not nearly as robust. Officers attempting to connect a suspect to a crime did so generally through fiber and hair analysis, shoe impressions, tire tracks, soil samples, or fingerprints. However, having perfected his criminal skills as a prolific home burglar in the suburbs of Washington, DC prior to being paroled to a halfway house in Richmond, Spencer was clever enough to realize he could escape detection as long as he did not leave any witnesses or fingerprints, and wiped down any surface he touched. In fact, at one point after he had been arrested, Spencer was told police would need to draw his blood. A confident Spencer responded by stating he had not left any blood at any of the crime scenes.
In a time before the O.J. Simpson trial and “CSI” made the technique a household name, what Spencer could not have anticipated was the emergence of DNA fingerprinting as a tool to assist in identifying perpetrators associated with crimes. At the time of his arrest, knowledge of the applicability of DNA as a genetic fingerprint was known to very few people, having only been discovered in 1985. The first use of DNA fingerprinting in a criminal case occurred in the U.K. in 1988 when cake decorator Colin Pitchfork pleaded guilty to rape and murder based upon the strength of DNA evidence that tied him to the crime. The trial of the Southside Strangler, however, would mark the first time DNA fingerprint evidence was utilized in the United States in a capital case. In addition, it was the first time in which DNA evidence was used in the U.S. to produce evidence that would lead to the exoneration of an individual convicted of a crime. As recounted in Paul Mones’ 1995 book, “Stalking Justice” (from which Roberts appears to have based quite a bit of his “Southern Nightmare” podcast), David Vasquez was a 38 year old McDonald’s janitor with the functional intelligence of a 10 year-old who had at one time lived in Arlington, Virginia. Carolyn
Hamm was a 32 year-old, hard-working attorney who had graduated from Princeton and lived in the same neighborhood as Vasquez until he moved away. In January 1984, Hamm was raped and strangled to death with a piece of Venetian blind cord by an individual whom police years later came to believe was Spencer. But at the time of Hamm’s murder, police had no idea who had committed this heinous crime. There were no fingerprints, no shoe impressions, and no eyewitnesses. Baffled by the lack of evidence at the crime scene, the only clues the Arlington detectives had to act upon were two neighbors who stated they had seen Vasquez in the vicinity of Hamm’s home before and after the murder acting “creepy” and “strange.” Desperate for any type of lead, this was enough for detectives to drive to Vasquez’s job and bring him back for questioning. The detectives proceeded to interrogate Vasquez a total of three times over two days and he originally denied having anything to do with Hamm’s murder, at one point questioning how he had even allegedly gotten to the scene of the crime since he lived 25 miles away, did not have a car, and did not drive. Ignoring this seemingly important exculpatory information, the detectives falsely informed Vasquez that his fingerprints had been found in her home and proceeded to feed him details about the crime that would only be known to the killer.
For example, at one point a detective asked Vasquez what he had used to tie Hamm’s hands. Vasquez replied that he had used “ropes.” When the detective replied ropes were not used, Vasquez then said he used his belt. Unsatisfied, the detective dismissed this response and asked him again what he used, to which Vasquez helpfully responded, “With a coat hanger?” Exasperated, the detective stated, “No, it wasn’t a coat hanger. It was something like a coat hanger? What was it? By the window? Think about the Venetian blinds, David. Remember cutting the Venetian blind cord?” Having been given the correct answer, Vasquez responded, “Ah, it was a thin rope,” to which the detective triumphantly responded “Yeah!” As the hours of Vasquez’s interrogations passed, he began to simply parrot what the two detectives told him about the brutal crime. Having been interrogated relentlessly and provided many of the specific details, Vasquez would eventually tell them that he had a “horrible dream” that paralleled aspects of the rape and murder. When the case went to trial, two of the interrogations were thrown out by the court because Vasquez was not informed of his rights prior to custodial questioning. However, the judge permitted prosecutors to utilize Vasquez’s “dream” confession as Vasquez had been Mirandized prior to this questioning.
Continued...
Continued...
CFInsider | P6
Faced with the death penalty, Vasquez’s court-appointed attorney urged him to enter an Alford plea, for which he received a 35-year sentence for the 2nd degree murder of Carolyn Hamm. After Vasquez’s exoneration when Virginia law enforcement officials came to the conclusion that it was actually Spencer who had raped and murdered Hamm, one of Vasquez’s attorneys outlined the predicament his innocent client had been in, having made a confession and hoping to rely upon a court later discovering the truth: “If he had gone to trial and had been sentenced to death, by the time the exculpatory evidence was discovered, he could have been executed.” Viewers of Netflix’s “Making of a Murderer” series no doubt recognize how accusations of coerced confessions sound distressingly familiar. Unfortunately, for investigators and interviewers, false confessions under intense questioning occur more times than many of us are aware or should be comfortable. For example, a 2008 research paper by John Jay College of Criminal Justice Distinguished Professor of Psychology Saul M. Kassin noted that studies of the first wave of convictions overturned in the 1990s based upon contradictory DNA evidence revealed that 25% involved innocent defendants who either made self-incriminating statements, confessions, or plead guilty. In his book “Convicting the Innocent” (2012), Duke Law Professor Brandon L. Garrett noted that of the 250 cases he studied in which an individual was exonerated through DNA evidence, 16% confessed to crimes they
did not commit. Of that number, almost 43% were either mentally disabled or mentally ill, while an additional 32% were juveniles. Of the total who confessed, all but 10% were interrogated for more than three hours, with almost 18% claiming their recollection of the crime came to them in a “vision” or “dream.” Compounding the problem for our criminal justice system is that once an individual has confessed to a crime, it is very difficult for them to prove they were not involved short of some type of extraordinary circumstances. Per Professor Kassin, in the American criminal justice system, “…false confessions often trump factual innocence.” Given the adverse circumstances one might face by confessing to a crime an individual did not carry out, a professional interviewer might be puzzled as to why such incidents continue to happen in our vocation? The fact of the matter is that false confessions date back at least as far as the Salem Witch Trials and will continue to remain a problem in our profession of which we must consistently be aware. Issues that an interviewer should be concerned with include the age of the interviewee, their physical condition, and the length of the interview (which, if too excessive, might lead to both physical and mental exhaustion that could cause an interviewee to simply confess to a crime in the hope they could go home or prove their innocence at a later time).
Additionally, individuals with diminished mental capacity are also at risk and vulnerable to making false confessions as they have even more difficulty withstanding the intense pressure of questioning. Further, these types of individuals are disadvantaged in terms of understanding their Constitutional rights. Individuals with mental disabilities or low intelligence levels are also likely to provide false confessions in order to accommodate law enforcement officials, whom they generally have been taught throughout their life to respect. When later asked why he had confessed to a crime that he had not committed, Vasquez (who was documented as having an IQ of 70) stated, “They pushed me. They put words into my mouth. I was repeating everything they were saying.” This is not to say that most professional interviewers who obtain false confessions do so because of some malicious intent or desire to cause an innocent person harm. These incidents occur for multiple reasons, primarily due to lack of professional training or because of a loss of objectivity on the part of the interviewer. As pointed out by fellow CFI Tony Paixão, “The one piece of preparation that is often overlooked is the mental side - taking time to intentionally orient our mindset to a neutral, truth-oriented state. This requires possessing the baseline knowledge of what can go wrong in the interview, as well as being aware of our own 500 Porter Street, Richmond
CFInsider | P7
preconceptions. Often, our judgment and purpose can become clouded by an objective of chasing the biases that we have developed at some point during the process of the investigation or interview.” Much like the podcast “Man In The Window” about the reign of terror inflicted by alleged Golden State Killer Joseph D’Angelo, “Southern Nightmare” vividly recounts a time and place from the relatively recent past to show how law enforcement officials were originally flummoxed in stopping a dangerous serial predator before finally utilizing the latest technology to bring that perpetrator to justice. While the audio production of “Southern Nightmare” is not quite up to the same quality standard as “Man In The Window,” both podcasts are highly evocative of the particular times and places when and where the crimes occurred. Further, both make a deliberate effort to represent the victims of the crimes as three dimensional human beings, rather than inordinately focusing their attention on the individuals who caused so much pain and suffering. Timothy Wilson Spencer eventually met his ultimate demise in 1994 strapped to the oak electric chair at the Greenville Correctional Center in rural Virginia, never having confessed to any of the crimes of which he was accused – at least five murders and a multitude of burglaries and rapes. According to a witness, at his execution Spencer’s face, “…was absent of emotion. No frown. No tears. No smile. Nothing. Not even a remote sign of sadness, regret or fear.” David Vasquez died in 2013, having forgiven the Arlington detectives who caused him to lose 1,796 days of his life for a crime the Commonwealth of Virginia later admitted he did not commit. According to a family friend, Vasquez repeatedly stated he felt the detectives who coerced his confession had simply made “a mistake.” As told in “Southern Nightmare,” David Vasquez’s tale is a timely reminder to all professional interviewers that we should take our roles seriously, constantly seek to refine our techniques, seek training to obtain new knowledge and training, remain objective and unbiased, and learn all we can to ensure that we do not make similar costly and preventable mistakes in the future.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
John Lowrey is a Senior Special Agent with the U.S. Department of State’s Office of Inspector General. John entered federal law enforcement in 2002 when he was selected to join the Diplomatic Security Service where his assignments included tours of the Washington Field Office, Office of Counterintelligence,
and Criminal Fraud Investigations.
In 2007, John completed an intensive language immersion program at the Foreign Service Institute before a two year assignment as the Assistant Regional Security Officer in Havana, Cuba. In 2011, John joined the Department of State’s Office of Inspector General in the Office of Investigations conducting investigations into allegations of waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct within the Department of State. He also served as liaison to Homeland Security Investigations at the Counter-Proliferation Investigations Center in Sterling, Virginia. Prior to working at the Inspector General Criminal Investigator Academy, John served as a detailed Instructor to FLETC’s Behavioral Science Division.
John’s investigative responsibilities have included passport and visa fraud, human trafficking, labor trafficking, counterintelligence, grant fraud, contract fraud, bribery, kickback schemes, import and export violations, conflicts of interest, as well as investigations of high-level Department of State officials. His dignitary protection assignments included a multitude of visiting foreign ministers, Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, and extended overseas assignments as the Shift Leader for protection details for the Interim President of Haiti and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
John is a FLETC trained Firearms Instructor, a Certified Fraud Examiner, Professional Certified Investigator, Certified Forensic Interviewer, and Certified Inspector General Investigator. Prior to becoming a federal agent, John served in the 82nd Airborne Division as an Infantry squad leader.
John graduated from Virginia Tech in 1993 with a B.S. in Political Science and from Virginia Commonwealth University in 1999 with an M.S. in Criminal Justice. He is a native of Richmond, Virginia and a proud Eagle Scout.
CFInsider | P8
We have had contradictory legal opinions regarding the NLRB Banner decision. We urge you to consider contacting your legal department for direction on how your organization should handle this NLRB ruling. If you can share the ideas of your organization with IAI we will put them together to share in a future edition. Send comments to [email protected].
The National Labor Relations Board has once again addressed the issue of requiring confidentiality from employees involved in an investigation. The most current case is out of the NLRB North East region and relates to a complaint against T-Mobile US Inc. This case is similar to a 2012 finding by the NLRB against Banner Estrella Medical Center.
In the Banner Estrella Medical Center case in Phoenix the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 2012, ruled that the common employer practice of prohibiting employees from discussing ongoing investigations violates the employees’ right under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to engage in concerted activity guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.
Section 7 states that employees shall, in addition to the right to self-organize and join unions, have the right to engage in “other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” (Emphasis added)
The Banner ruling applies to union and nonunion employers since both are covered by the NLRA’s protection of concerted activity among any employees. In the NLRB ruling the board found that a mere concern about protecting the integrity of
LEGAL ASPECTSby David E Zulawski, CFI, CFE
the investigation did not outweigh the employees’ rights as protected under the Labor Relations Act.
The board found the employer must “first determine whether in any given investigation witnesses needed protection, evidence was in danger of being destroyed, testimony was in danger of being fabricated or there was a need to prevent a cover up.” In the Banner case the Board found that the organization’s “blanket approach clearly failed to meet those requirements.” As a result, it decided that a rule prohibiting employees from discussing ongoing investigations of misconduct violated the National Labor Relations Act.
In a more recent case, the NLRB again addressed T-Mobile US Inc. policy requiring employees keep investigations confidential and determined it also violated the law. The NLRB ruling found that the policy while attempting to protect an internal investigation had the effect of preventing an employee’s right to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment.The T-Mobile case stems from a sexual harassment investigation at a call center in Maine. The employee in this case was asked to sign an agreement to keep the content of discussions with investigators private along with the names of those involved. In addition, the document required the employee from undermining or impeding the investigation.
The Administrative Law Judge again referenced Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act while coming to his findings. The Administrative Law Judge decided that it could be “reasonably construed” to prevent employees from discussing the terms and conditions of their employment.
Quote of the Quarter You don’t have to be great to start,
but you have to start to be great.ZIG ZIGLAR
MADDIE WROBELMaddie is the Administrative Assistant for The International Association of Interviewers. In her six months in this role, she has met many wonderful people and learned a great deal about the industry. She is excited to see where this role will take her and is simply delighted to be with IAI.
Maddie is a Chicago native. Her previous work experience includes ghost writing for a marketing agency, debt consolidation management and retail management. When she isn’t working, Maddie is a student at The Second City’s Training Center in their Music Conservatory. She is astoundingly dedicated to her dog, Miller, and is a lifelong fan of Sir Paul McCartney.
Spotlight CFI
CFInsider | P9
EMILY KUHNEmily is a seasoned association professional who brings 20 years of marketing and sales expertise to her role as Association Manager. Formerly of Kellen Company, she’s worked as key liaison and Sr. Education Administrator for ASCRS, (American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons) AOSW, (Association of Oncology Social Workers) and many other large organizations. Her experience building outreach programs, conference planning and overseeing online continuing education make her a natural fit as she joins the International Association of Interviewers.
Emily studied Psychology at Augustana College and is a professional performer and presenter. She enjoys traveling, live music and spending time with family and friends.
CFInsider | P10
APRIL 1-2, 2020NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
BE VISIBLE, ENGAGED AND CONNECTED WITH INDUSTRY LEADERS
2020REGISTRATION REMINDERS HERE
C H A P T E R UPDATESMIDWEST CHAPTER: The Midwest Chapter will have their next meeting on October 8th from 10:00am – 3:00pm. The event will be held at Office Depot’s Itasca facility (800 Bryn Mawr Avenue Itasca, IL 60143). The Chapter is elated to welcome special guest speakers Julie Kratz and Wayne Hoover, CFI. Roundtables as well as CEU and networking opportunities will be available. The Chapter welcomes those interested in an International Association of Interviewers (IAI) membership or Certified Forensic Interviewer (CFI) designation as well as current CFIs looking for CEUs and current IAI members. SIGN UP HERE
NORTHEAST CHAPTER: The Northeast Chapter had their latest meeting on August 13th. The event was hosted by TJX at their Marlborough offices in Massachusetts. Rich Britton, CFI, TJX, started the meeting with a presentation on Neurolinguistics. Steve Palumbo, CFI, Tiffany & Co. hosted open discussion on receiving buy ins from business partners outside of the LP Department. Tammy Clark, CFI, CFE of Wicklander-Zulawski was the final speaker of the day. Tammy discussed Participatory Interview techniques. The Chapter is thankful to all who attended. The next Northeast Chapter meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 8th from 1:00pm – 4:00pm at the Ralph Lauren location at 9 Polito Ave. Lyndhurst NJ, 07071.
Topics to be discussed are:• W-Z Tony Paixao CFI, LPC – Building Rapport• Abe Gonzalez CFI, LPC – Video / Audio Recorded
Interviews• Nate Prusi, CFI, LPEC / Elisha Toye CFI / Lisa Caccimo,
CFI – Open discussion / Human Resources
Seating is limited to 30, at this time, so please RSVP to [email protected], by Oct 1st, 2019. This meeting is open to all CFI’s and anyone interested in pursuing the CFI designation. We are also extending this meeting to your HR partners, if they would like to attend as well.
SOUTH CHAPTER: The South Chapter held their meeting on September 17th at McCoy’s Building Supply Headquarters in San Marcos, Texas. Tammy Clark, CFI, CFE of Wicklander-Zulawski spoke at the meeting.
WEST COAST CHAPTER: The West Coast Chapter welcomed several changes in the past two months and are thrilled to announce their new board:
Chair: Hector Erazo, CFIFirst Chair: Matt Dawson, CFI Second Chair: Max Alonso Secretary/Treasurer: Justine Venezia Membership/Education Chair: Lise Lang, CFI Community Chair: Carolyn Manick Planning Committee Chair: Katie Ayala, CFI
SAVE THE DATES!
CFInsider | P11
Continued...
Criminal Investigations are being challenged throughout the United States. DNA technology has led to exonerations of persons who were criminally convicted and sentenced to lengthy periods of incarceration(https:www.innocenceproject.org/allcases/#exonerated-by-dna). Municipalities and investigators are often named as defendants in the resulting lawsuits. The legal community, news media, and public focus is often directed toward the investigators assigned to the investigation. Theoretically, plaintiffs, researchers, academics, and law-enforcement want to change the practices that lead to the undesired result, a false confession. In order to change the result, it becomes necessary to change the process that may have led to the outcome. To determine the root cause of the process, as it exists today, we may ask ourselves, “What standard does management use when rating investigators under their command?”
Do successful investigators excel when they consistently complete all their investigations in a timely manner, no matter how complicated? Are investigators judged by the number of arrests, apprehensions, or confessions obtained? Does management look upon every suspect as an offender, looking badly upon investigators who are unable to obtain confessions when suspects are questioned? When conducting investigative interviews, what is the outcome for the investigator who does not obtain a confession? If the investigator is not successful, is he or she assigned to undesirable tasks?
This author’s conversations with investigators throughout the United States, and from past investigative experience, indicate that many investigators are working in organizations that are understaffed and overworked. Whether employed by local police departments, state, federal, or corporate entities, investigators are assigned to complete inquiries into an inordinate amount of cases. This is not exclusive to any single organization. There is an unrealistic expectation that a thorough inquiry will be made into each of their investigations. Financial restraints limit the number of additional employees
An Assessment of
INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICES Part 1
by Thomas F. McGreal, CFI
that can be hired or technological assistance that can be utilized.
Some organizations and investigators do seek training regarding best practices, attempting to improve their interview skills. Even with the additional training, some investigators cannot seem to overcome the enormity of their work loads. Although individual investigators may spend additional time on some cases, time restrictions will not allow them to conduct thorough investigations into each of their assignments. Their case load would increase dramatically, and their assignments would never get completed. They feel they would be looked upon negatively by their organization. As a result, investigators are finding a way to complete their assignments, often at the expense of a professional and thorough investigation.
Management may conclude the above situation is a result of good supervision and a productive work force, doing more with less. Money that would be spent on hiring is saved, and the work is still being completed. This may be viewed as the best of all worlds.
Investigators may conclude that help is not on the way, and they must live within their current situation. Failure to complete their assigned tasks would place their employment and their relationship with management in jeopardy. As a result, they find a way to complete their assignments, at the expense of thoroughness and best practices. “It is characterized by taking a short cut as much as possible” (Shepherd & Griffith (2013); pp 7-8).
There are many factors that may affect the thought process of the investigator carrying heavy case loads and struggling to keep-up with his or her investigations. Supervisors may convey the belief that all persons questioned are guilty and a good investigator would be able to determine if the person is lying and obtain an admission of guilt. Investigators who share this belief will enter the interrogation room with a presumption of guilt. The now biased investigator has a desire to confirm the suspect’s guilt. He or she accepts
CFInsider | P12
information pointing to a person’s culpability, while ignoring information that would benefit the suspect. In these interrogations, the investigator is seeking an admission of guilt. The investigator may be ignoring truthful information that would benefit the suspect. (Shepherd & Griffith 2013; pp 7-8; Trainum 2016; p 9)
Externally, major incidents draw the attention of the media, leading to public outcry. In these cases, the investigative process may be completely controlled by upper level management. This layer of supervision will determine most decisions regarding the investigative process. This assistance could be beneficial when many investigators are assigned to a major investigation. The level of control can assist and organize the investigative process. This may also allow more investigative freedom to the lead investigator. This type of assistance will only be successful if the upper layer of management has the investigative experience to conduct a professional and thorough investigation and does not take initiative away from investigators. Upper level management assistance must continue after the case is closed, ensuring that all assigned tasks have been completed. In many cases, once the case is closed and media and public pressure has subsided, the lead investigator is left alone to complete all investigative tasks. If, at the same time, management pressures the lead investigator to move on to the next investigation, many tasks may be left incomplete.
Investigators who fail to resist the pressure of the above described mindset are seeking a short-term gain, completing their assignments, while exposing themselves to possible devastating results when their faulty investigations are discovered. Consequences may range from lawsuits leading to punitive damages, public and family embarrassment, termination, or in extreme cases, incarceration. The investigator must remember he or she is always expected to complete their investigations in a professional and ethical manner, despite any internal or external pressure. Lack of manpower, technological assistance, or total number of assignments is rarely, if ever, considered when lawsuits are filed, and investigators are accused of conducting faulty investigations. When media outlets become aware of these incidents and public outcry is maximized, the affected investigator is often left alone to respond to the allegations.
So, what is the solution to heavy caseloads, lack of manpower and technical support when conducting investigative interviews? Investigators are seeking information they can use to successfully complete their investigations in a professional and timely manner. In most cases, investigators have little control over the amount of assignments they receive from management, although, they can ensure they conduct professional investigations. There are no easy answers. Every investigation is different, and no two interviews are the same. Some investigations will proceed quickly and professionally, with little effort. Other inquiries will require more time, probing, confirming, and documenting information received. Investigators must pursue all their investigations with integrity, avoiding shortcuts and treating all persons with dignity and respect. The world of investigations is constantly changing. A professional investigator must become a student of the investigative process. He or she must stay current with changes in the law, public perception, and universally accepted best practices. This concludes Part I of “An Assessment of Investigative Practices”. In the next issue of CFInsider, we will examine best practices to be considered when conducting investigative interviews.
ABOUT THE AUTHORThomas F. McGreal is a Certified Forensic Interviewer, employed by Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates. Thomas was previously employed by the Cook County, Illinois State Attorney’s Office as an Investigator in the Post-Conviction / Conviction Integrity Unit. Thomas McGreal was also employed by the Chicago Police Department and assigned to the Detective Division.
_______
Source material:Accessed on August 1, 2019. (https: www.innocence project.org/allcases/#exonerated-by-dna)
Shepherd, E., & Griffiths, A. (2013). Investigative interviewing: The conversation management approach. (2nd ed.). Great Clarendon Street, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press
Trainum, J. (2016). How the police generate false confessions: An inside look at the interrogation room. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.
CFInsider | P13
DOWN THE TOILET
STOP FLUSHING YOUR BUDGET
You could save up to 80% on a more secure, easier to manage
mechanical key system.
Learn how you can stop wasting money on locks and keys!instakey.com/retail | [email protected] | 1-800-316-5397
CFInsider | P14
C F I ON THE MOVEJUNEDave Harben, CFI was named Director, Asset Protection (Western US) for Ascena Retail Group
Deanna Bonachea, CFI was named Regional Asset Protection Leader for Ascena Retail Group
Doreen Pavese, CFI was named Regional Asset Protection Manager for Follett
Erik Van Herik, CFI was named Senior Analyst, Risk Management for Verizon
JULYWayne Getz, CFI was named Manager – ORC Investigations for Best Buy
Aaron Hancart, CFI was named Director of Operations – Inventory Management for LensCrafters
Ben Robeano, CFI was named Manager, SC Safety and AP for Lowe’s
Alexis Flores-Gonzalez, CFI was named Regional Manager of Asset Protection for Abercrombie & Fitch
Mark Trimmer, CFI was named Director, Loss Prevention and Safety for Goodwill Columbus
Martin Hengst, CFI was named Senior Director, Loss Prevention and Asset Protection for Giorgio Armani
Alycia Taylor, CFI was named Director of Asset Protection for Advance Auto Parts
AUGUSTCarolyn Korchik, CFI was named Director of Physical Security (West) for Lyft
Harold McIntyre, CFI was named Director, Asset Protection of New York and New England for Bloomingdale’s
Lise Lang, CFI was named Risk Compliance Manager – Threat Assessment Board for Starbucks Coffee Company
Will Pratt, CFI was named HQ Physical Security Leader for Lyft
866.403.9630 www.protossecurity.com
Still looking for the best all-in-one tool for LP Professionals?Even the best LP Pros can lose their edge trying to manage an ever changing guard program without the right tools. Protos is the all-in-one guard solution that combines advanced management & oversight tools, with customer service that is sharper than a double-edged sword.
Relax... We’ve got your back! Call and see for yourself why the nation’s most successful loss prevention managers rely on Protos Security.
Welcome NEW CFIsJUNE 2019 Angel Brogden, Roland Burbano, Colton Cantrell, David Davis, Melissa Erno, Richard Huwang, Michael Interlandi, Jason Jackson, James Johnstone, Justin Knickerbocker, Dennis Long, Albert Miller, Samuel Paley, Bruno Pavlicek, Mark Zibel
CFInsider | P15
AUGUST 2019Kristel Imeraj, Jessica Smith, Scott Snider, Robert Clark, Kevin Marquardson, Richard Martin, Patrick Sandford, Timothy Scott, Mark Seabolt, Denise Carranza, Shelley Soucy
JULY 2019Cherise Barr, Todd Bolce, Timothy Feorene, Denise Hosford, Joao Moretto Boarato, Emily Reiman, Sandy Chandler, David Swanson, Stephanie Kishimoto
CALL FOR ARTICLES
The CFInsider Journal is distributed in electronic format only. You can view back issues of this newsletter, CLICK HERE.
ABOUT CFInsiderOpinions and ideas in CFInsider are intended for information only and not meant to be used as legal advice. Statements of fact and opinions made are the responsibility of the authors and do not imply an opinion on the part of IAI, its officers, the editors or its members. Member articles about interview and interrogation published in CFInsider qualify for Continuing Education Credits. Should you have any questions on obtaining re-certification for your CFI designation, please, CLICK HERE to contact IAI.
HELPFUL LINKSCFI Designation Renewal, CLICK HERE and login to your profile.
CFIs in the Media, VIEW HERE.Want to Join a Committee? MORE INFO HERE
THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORSDIAMOND SPONSOR
Click on our sponsors’ logos to visit their site.
SILVER SPONSORS
Video of the Quarter IAI Video Tip: Instructions to WitnessesBy Tammy Clark, CFI, CFE
CFInsider | P16
LETTER FROM THE EDITOR
EDITORSJoseph Nay, CFI, VXI Global [email protected]
Cary Jones, CFI, [email protected]
Stefanie Hoover, CFI, [email protected]
Wayne Hoover, CFI, [email protected]
Emily Kuhn, [email protected]
Maddie Wrobel, [email protected]
CFINSIDER JOURNAL COMMITTEEJoseph Carteret, CFI, Gap [email protected]
Joe Davis, CFI, [email protected]
Larry Hughes, CFI, [email protected]
Shane Jennings, CFI, Music & Arts Centers, [email protected]
Paul Joeckel, CFI, Auto [email protected]
Kevin Larson, CFI, [email protected]
John Lowrey, [email protected]
Mark Lukens, CFI, [email protected]
JD Mauricio, CFI, Luxottica [email protected]
James McLemore, CFI, [email protected]
Michael Reddington, CFI, InQuasive, [email protected]
Benjamin Robeano, CFI, Big [email protected]
Greg Sharp, [email protected]
Kevin Stone, [email protected]
Alberto Testa, CFI, University of West [email protected]
Sonja Upchurch, [email protected]
Steve Welk, CFI, Barnes & Noble [email protected]
Joe Wojcik, CFI, [email protected]
Elias [email protected]
David Zulawski, CFI, CFE, [email protected]
CFInsider | P17
Recently Steven Avery’s Attorney issued a press release stating “We are pleased to announce that a reward of $100,000 is being offered, by a concerned citizen, for the arrest and conviction of the real killer of Teresa Halbach".
That brought up the topic of Steven Avery and Making a Murderer at our corporate office, and the use of DNA to exonerate someone. The interesting part of the conversation was Loss Prevention wasn’t involved in the discussion, it was started by people who do not interview. I was pulled into the dialogue, and asked my opinion. I stated while some may think that DNA is the automatic answer and medical science is a few days away from being able to solve every crime, that DNA is often only used in higher profile cases to right a wrong. I added that though I wish it were always available, sometimes you have to rely on hard work, training, careful analysis of the case facts and a proper interview to close a case.
The question we should ask after a DNA exoneration is how the false confession occurred. Two examples in this issue shed light on this subject by including DNA and interviewing. John Lowrey, CFI, talks about the poor interview tactics used in the eighties Southside Strangler case and how the new science of DNA cleared an innocent man. Thomas McGreal, CFI, begins his assessment of interview practices by mentioning DNA and the Innocence Project, before covering why some investigators are successful, some are not, and the factors that impact investigations. One article provides an excellent example of how the false confession occurred, and the other points to reasons it could. DNA will continue to become more exact and more available, and will help flush out and expose false confessions. I believe as CFIs we have an obligation to find the truth, even when DNA evidence is not available. We also should try and understand why someone would elicit a false confession when DNA has proved them wrong. Lowrey’s and McGreal’s articles help us understand the traps of a bad investigation, and as a result make us better interviewers. I hope you enjoy their articles and the entire issue as much as I did.
Cary Jones, CFI
