There's now eight months to go before the mid-term elections and Rob Perry's Swiftboaters are busy compiling information on a variety of Democratic congressmen. The Tea Party folks are rapidly solidifying their position as a second front to target Dems who believe government resources should be spent on people who need it. In the meantime, the Dems and their supporters are playing Nero's fiddle by redoubling efforts to introduce legislation to try to undue the Citizen's United decision. The DSCC has its Google AD about "not we the corporation" and Dick Durbin is pushing for taxpayer funded elections (a good idea) with a new bill authorizing public funds when candidates raise small contributions from lots of contributors (I really do like that). After all there is no doubt the public overwhelmingly opposed the decision so why shouldn't the Dems focus their attention in that direction?
It's called REALITY.
After all, the Dems had a supermajority in the senate and they got all of those bills they passed turned into law. Well almost all. Well, okay, not very many. But, no problem they will most definitely still get Durbin's bill into law without the supermajority. No problem there whatsoever. Sure.
Besides, with Obama as president, the Supreme Court is about to become more progressive because all of the older judges with health related issues are conservative. Well almost all. Well okay, they're all part of the liberal block and at best with his appointment's President Obama can only keep the court from going MORE conservative. But, fortunately, even a conservative court wouldn't dare interject it's personal views into politics and especially elections, so they won't issue an emergency stay to prevent implementation of any bills passed to offset the fallout from Citizen's United. Al Gore can vouch for that.
So to recap, chances are pretty slight that the Dems will get bills through congress that offset the impact from Citizen's United and if they do, the Supreme Court is not about to let those bills take effect.
So Dem interest groups, the clock is ticking. It's time to get your butts' in gear. Focus your resources where they can be the most effective. Use your funds to investigate those candidates from the other side and educate the voters as to who they really are before it is too late!
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Question Answered
The DA in Mass. with jurisdiction over the shooting death of Seth Bishop initially felt the statute of limitations had passed to prosecute Amy Bishop, the Alabama professor who now faces capital murder charges for slaying three co-workers. He was thinking of manslaughter when he aired that thought. Well, he's decided to hold an "Inquest" to hear the evidence known about the shooting to determine if the shooting was in-fact premeditated murder and not accidental. And why not? Amy Bishop has shown through her actions that she will let no one stand in her way. An intentional killing does not have the same statute of limitations in Mass.
So apparently, having reviewed some of the original reports, including those identifying newspaper clippings of stories about similar shootings that pre-dated Seth's killing that were found in Amy Bishop's bedroom, he believes it's worth airing it out. Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors should pay very careful attention to the outcome of this exercise. In many ways, this is "a little too late" and perhaps involves some pay back to a predecessor. But, it is also a chance to see publicly what is known and to review how it went south during the investigation phase. Perhaps it is also chance to apply some of the advances in criminalistics that have occurred since 1986.
Personally, I am looking forward to hearing the original investigators explain away their inaction. Always something interesting going on.
So apparently, having reviewed some of the original reports, including those identifying newspaper clippings of stories about similar shootings that pre-dated Seth's killing that were found in Amy Bishop's bedroom, he believes it's worth airing it out. Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors should pay very careful attention to the outcome of this exercise. In many ways, this is "a little too late" and perhaps involves some pay back to a predecessor. But, it is also a chance to see publicly what is known and to review how it went south during the investigation phase. Perhaps it is also chance to apply some of the advances in criminalistics that have occurred since 1986.
Personally, I am looking forward to hearing the original investigators explain away their inaction. Always something interesting going on.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Ignoring the Warning Signs
Investigation serves a purpose. It provides actionable information. But sometimes, actionable information is not acted upon and that can have significant consequences.
The US Attorney's office in Mass. is taking another look at the pipe bombing incident involving the Harvard professor who exposed Dr. Bishop's emotional difficulties and propensity for violence to Harvard. Apparently, there is a person who reported that Dr. Bishop's husband threatened to blow up this other professor. So it appears that not only was it known that Dr. Bishop had it out for this professor, but it was reported that her husband threatened the very action that was later attempted.
I think it is a good thing that the US Attorney in Mass, the Mass State Police, the District Attorney and the Braintree PD are all taking a second look-- perhaps other law enforcement agencies might be willing to take a second look before another Alabama happens again.
To learn more about investigation skills and applications visit http://www.everydaydetective.com
The US Attorney's office in Mass. is taking another look at the pipe bombing incident involving the Harvard professor who exposed Dr. Bishop's emotional difficulties and propensity for violence to Harvard. Apparently, there is a person who reported that Dr. Bishop's husband threatened to blow up this other professor. So it appears that not only was it known that Dr. Bishop had it out for this professor, but it was reported that her husband threatened the very action that was later attempted.
I think it is a good thing that the US Attorney in Mass, the Mass State Police, the District Attorney and the Braintree PD are all taking a second look-- perhaps other law enforcement agencies might be willing to take a second look before another Alabama happens again.
To learn more about investigation skills and applications visit http://www.everydaydetective.com
Monday, February 22, 2010
It's Time Dirt Digging Got It's Due
The National Enquirer is up for a Pulitzer Prize. Yes, that is not a misprint. You know what, it absolutely deserves it for one of the best bits of investigative journalism to hit in this decade!
Back during the Democratic Primary for President. I was spending a lot of time vetting campaign staff and volunteers for the Richardson campaign. It was a smart thing to do by the campaign since things can blow up fast. By the way, I did not do any op-research in that race.
I was flying out to California with my son to visit my mom when I got a call while at the airport in Phoenix from a reporter from the Journal wanting my comment on the Atlantic Monthly Editor's blog labeling me "Governor Richardson's PI", which then got a second run on Huffington Post, because of my being on the campaign's expenditure reports. Since I think the world of the Governor, I think being his "PI" is cool, but beyond that, this meant that someone had to search through all of the expenditure reports and then investigate what those people did. Seems awful labor intensive for a primary race. To me it seemed panicky.
Well, the campaign handled it easily and the blog readers' responses were supportive of professional investigators being involved in campaigns. So it was no big deal and faded away as quickly as it surfaced. However, we began to suspect that the leak to the Atlantic Monthly editor came from John Edwards' campaign. He was neck and neck with the Governor at that point and it seemed the most logical to us.
Soon after, the National Enquire began to really work on the mistress and her pregnancy story. Suddenly, it made sense. The Edwards' campaign was worried that we were looking into his personal life and they launched a pre-emptive strike apparently in the hopes of keeping us away. However, while going after us directly, the Edwards' campaign dismissed the actual investigative work that was done by the Enquirer, as you know, "the Enquirer" and it was as factual as aliens landing in NYC.
Well, we now know, that Edwards did all the things that the Enquirer wrote and may well have paid hush money from his campaign to his mistress--err, "fiance" and that baby is his. What a sleaze. Thank God for the Enquirer and its "dirt digging" because that man wanted to run our country. Now, he's done as he should be.
Back during the Democratic Primary for President. I was spending a lot of time vetting campaign staff and volunteers for the Richardson campaign. It was a smart thing to do by the campaign since things can blow up fast. By the way, I did not do any op-research in that race.
I was flying out to California with my son to visit my mom when I got a call while at the airport in Phoenix from a reporter from the Journal wanting my comment on the Atlantic Monthly Editor's blog labeling me "Governor Richardson's PI", which then got a second run on Huffington Post, because of my being on the campaign's expenditure reports. Since I think the world of the Governor, I think being his "PI" is cool, but beyond that, this meant that someone had to search through all of the expenditure reports and then investigate what those people did. Seems awful labor intensive for a primary race. To me it seemed panicky.
Well, the campaign handled it easily and the blog readers' responses were supportive of professional investigators being involved in campaigns. So it was no big deal and faded away as quickly as it surfaced. However, we began to suspect that the leak to the Atlantic Monthly editor came from John Edwards' campaign. He was neck and neck with the Governor at that point and it seemed the most logical to us.
Soon after, the National Enquire began to really work on the mistress and her pregnancy story. Suddenly, it made sense. The Edwards' campaign was worried that we were looking into his personal life and they launched a pre-emptive strike apparently in the hopes of keeping us away. However, while going after us directly, the Edwards' campaign dismissed the actual investigative work that was done by the Enquirer, as you know, "the Enquirer" and it was as factual as aliens landing in NYC.
Well, we now know, that Edwards did all the things that the Enquirer wrote and may well have paid hush money from his campaign to his mistress--err, "fiance" and that baby is his. What a sleaze. Thank God for the Enquirer and its "dirt digging" because that man wanted to run our country. Now, he's done as he should be.
Friday, February 19, 2010
A Shredder in Every Home
In today's Albuquerque Journal, a front page article covered the arrest of what they are calling the largest identity theft ring in the state. Apparently each person in the ring had a specific task, some handled the B & E to steal checks and id info, others created fake ID's and counterfeit checks and still others cashed the checks. They got caught. This type of ID theft is the province of junkies-- meth especially. If one gets caught the others roll and down goes the ring.
A quick note to the Supreme Court committee-- no court records were used in the stealing of identities by the state's "largest group".
But, since we're on the topic, here are some easy to follow tips to reduce your risk of identity theft from these types of ID thieves (the hacker types are a whole different type of thief-- there is little you can do yourself to protect from them as they typically hack third part repositories such as credit card processing companies. Reducing your risk is all about common sense.
-- Don't ever leave your driver's license or check book in the car. Not in the glove box or console. Period.
-- Reduce your use of paper checks. Use a check card whenever possible.
-- Keep your checks, bank statements and personal identification in places that require a bit of searching. If someone breaks into your home to steal your financial info, soc # and other info-- they don't have a lot of time before they have to run. Make it harder. Note: Top drawer of the dresser is not a good place.
-- Password protect your computer and remove last years tax returns from them. Save them to a hard drive that you can keep hidden. The same with any other personal info on your computer. If they grab the computer make it take so long to get your info that you have plenty of time to cancel everything before they get to it.
--Make your house less attractive to burglars. Most burglaries are daytime affairs-- a burglar is less likely to get shot breaking into a home when no one is home. Dogs that stay inside, alarm systems and signs, good exterior lighting, no bushes blocking the front door from public view. Have good dead bolts, locking bars or clips on sliding doors and windows.
And of course shred anything that can be used to steal your identity before throwing it in the trash or recycling.
For more information on how to reduce your risk of being a crime victim including identity theft visit
http://www.everydaydetective.com
A quick note to the Supreme Court committee-- no court records were used in the stealing of identities by the state's "largest group".
But, since we're on the topic, here are some easy to follow tips to reduce your risk of identity theft from these types of ID thieves (the hacker types are a whole different type of thief-- there is little you can do yourself to protect from them as they typically hack third part repositories such as credit card processing companies. Reducing your risk is all about common sense.
-- Don't ever leave your driver's license or check book in the car. Not in the glove box or console. Period.
-- Reduce your use of paper checks. Use a check card whenever possible.
-- Keep your checks, bank statements and personal identification in places that require a bit of searching. If someone breaks into your home to steal your financial info, soc # and other info-- they don't have a lot of time before they have to run. Make it harder. Note: Top drawer of the dresser is not a good place.
-- Password protect your computer and remove last years tax returns from them. Save them to a hard drive that you can keep hidden. The same with any other personal info on your computer. If they grab the computer make it take so long to get your info that you have plenty of time to cancel everything before they get to it.
--Make your house less attractive to burglars. Most burglaries are daytime affairs-- a burglar is less likely to get shot breaking into a home when no one is home. Dogs that stay inside, alarm systems and signs, good exterior lighting, no bushes blocking the front door from public view. Have good dead bolts, locking bars or clips on sliding doors and windows.
And of course shred anything that can be used to steal your identity before throwing it in the trash or recycling.
For more information on how to reduce your risk of being a crime victim including identity theft visit
http://www.everydaydetective.com
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The Businessman's CIA
An interesting story in Tablet Magazine about a former government consultant who has cobbled together some ex-cia intel folks and puts out a subscription newsletter offering information on countries around the world for businessman who conduct business overseas. The writer dubs it the private CIA. But that's not accurate, what it is though is a information library that comes to you. Kind of like the old mobile libraries that we had access to as kids. But instead of an old bus, the information delivery is accomplished via email. Pick a topic, such as the business climate in Poland, and anytime information breaks that might impact your business dealings in Poland you get the info in an email.
What really is interesting about this is that the service is going like gangbusters. The subscription costs $349 per year paid up front. You get regular email blasts of information cobbled together from news stories and government research reports from around the world. You get something else too-- the ability to show that you are on top of things without having to do anything other than read an email. I think that's why its so successful. Instant expertise.
There is enough interest in the business world that he maintains a staff of intel gatherers, analysts and writers to put it all together. According to the article, there are even subscribers from the government who want to make sure that their own staff are doing their jobs.
The article's author describes it as the McDonald's of the intel world. A one stop quick in and out of information about how different governments are challenging the business world. Not deeply satisfying, but filling enough to allow you to keep going.
As an investigator and op-researcher, my work world is about targeted information that is specific to an individual or business. I find it really interesting that people will pay for generalized information gathering. On one level though it truly makes sense. People are showing that information is critical to making decisions. The businessman use the information to decide how best to structure their overseas work. Is this country safe as a long term market or not. Plus they get to show off to their bosses!
For more information on how you can harness the power of investigation visit http://www.everydaydetective.com.
What really is interesting about this is that the service is going like gangbusters. The subscription costs $349 per year paid up front. You get regular email blasts of information cobbled together from news stories and government research reports from around the world. You get something else too-- the ability to show that you are on top of things without having to do anything other than read an email. I think that's why its so successful. Instant expertise.
There is enough interest in the business world that he maintains a staff of intel gatherers, analysts and writers to put it all together. According to the article, there are even subscribers from the government who want to make sure that their own staff are doing their jobs.
The article's author describes it as the McDonald's of the intel world. A one stop quick in and out of information about how different governments are challenging the business world. Not deeply satisfying, but filling enough to allow you to keep going.
As an investigator and op-researcher, my work world is about targeted information that is specific to an individual or business. I find it really interesting that people will pay for generalized information gathering. On one level though it truly makes sense. People are showing that information is critical to making decisions. The businessman use the information to decide how best to structure their overseas work. Is this country safe as a long term market or not. Plus they get to show off to their bosses!
For more information on how you can harness the power of investigation visit http://www.everydaydetective.com.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Leopards Don't Change Their Spots- They Just Get Spottier
The Boston Globe is doing an outstanding job of tugging on the loose threads involving the life of Dr. Amy Bishop, the shooter at the University in Alabama. The University yesterday defended it's hiring of Bishop claiming that none of the reported information ever led to a conviction so the information wasn't available when they checked for criminal cases.
Weak!!!
Today, the Globe reported that in 2003, Bishop walked into an IHOP in Mass, asked for a booster seat for her young child and when told the seat was in use, walked over to the other woman with an infant, demanded the seat and then PUNCHED HER IN THE HEAD. Bishop being really grounded in this Universe then screamed at the woman "I'm Dr. Amy Bishop" as if to say how dare you use a booster seat meant for my child because I'm so important. Of course- this also tends to cause you to get arrested when you identify yourself as you slug someone for no reason.
Clearly, she was losing a grip on her faculties (sorry) and the University should have known this. For those at the University- this is referred to as NEGLIGENT RETENTION. They might as well just turn out the lights. But, surely, they will claim they didn't know. Bishop didn't tell them-- but that doesn't get them off the hook. This happened on their watch and they most definitely should have known about it.
Here's also why I think they lose the background investigation argument. Background investigations can be done on the cheap- a fingerprint check- or running a fee for service database-- or they can be thorough-- checking public records including civil and domestic relations cases as well as using publicly available information-- News articles fit the bill here.
No doubt, there are news articles about the killing of her brother and the armed carjacking attempt, of the search warrant served on her home in conjunction with the pipe bomb sent to the co-worker she was feuding with at Harvard.
Finally, did these background folks ever hear of interviewing people? I am guessing not.
To learn more about how to conduct a thorough background investigation visit: http://www.everydaydetective.com
Weak!!!
Today, the Globe reported that in 2003, Bishop walked into an IHOP in Mass, asked for a booster seat for her young child and when told the seat was in use, walked over to the other woman with an infant, demanded the seat and then PUNCHED HER IN THE HEAD. Bishop being really grounded in this Universe then screamed at the woman "I'm Dr. Amy Bishop" as if to say how dare you use a booster seat meant for my child because I'm so important. Of course- this also tends to cause you to get arrested when you identify yourself as you slug someone for no reason.
Clearly, she was losing a grip on her faculties (sorry) and the University should have known this. For those at the University- this is referred to as NEGLIGENT RETENTION. They might as well just turn out the lights. But, surely, they will claim they didn't know. Bishop didn't tell them-- but that doesn't get them off the hook. This happened on their watch and they most definitely should have known about it.
Here's also why I think they lose the background investigation argument. Background investigations can be done on the cheap- a fingerprint check- or running a fee for service database-- or they can be thorough-- checking public records including civil and domestic relations cases as well as using publicly available information-- News articles fit the bill here.
No doubt, there are news articles about the killing of her brother and the armed carjacking attempt, of the search warrant served on her home in conjunction with the pipe bomb sent to the co-worker she was feuding with at Harvard.
Finally, did these background folks ever hear of interviewing people? I am guessing not.
To learn more about how to conduct a thorough background investigation visit: http://www.everydaydetective.com
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Old Crimes, New Investigations
The original handling by the police of the shooting of Ms. Bishop's brother in Braintree has got to bother the current police. Clearly, something was wrong about how it was handled. After all in a continuation of that crime she ran to a car lot, pointed the same weapon at two men and demanded a car. Oh yeah, she told them she needed the car to get away from an abusive husband who was going to kill her. A flat out lie, which of course should have raised an eyebrow of the cops investigating the shooting.
This raises a whole bunch of questions, and not just for that cold case, but for 1000's of cold cases throughout the country. Should the Braintree police reopen the shooting case? Is there a benefit to closing a murder when the shooter is facing three homicides in another state? Can modern technology be used to better assess the three shots Bishop fired in the house? Are the men at the car lot's version of events being retold to the media today accurate or has time played tricks with their memory? Finally, what about those cases where the police either out of incompetence, laziness or corruption chose not to investigate-- should the victims' families be entitled to a new investigation conducted by better trained investigators, with better tools who actually care?
Lots of questions. Some more to throw in the mix. The New Mexico Supreme Court on Wednesday is to hear oral arguments in a challenge to the fact that New Mexico had a stature of limitations for first degree felonies, rape and murder until 1997. It was actually 1993, but then that was repealed and redone as 1997. The cold case units of the larger police departments will be most directly affected by the Court's decision.
Should the ability to run DNA or interview witnesses that suddenly come forward after many, many years be pursued to close out a case if there can be no prosecution? There is absolutely no doubt that new technology has the ability to free people wrongly convicted and to catch those that got away. What is the best path to take for our society as a whole? Should we close the door and say no prosecution based upon newly discovered evidence, while at the same time stepping up the ability to clear those wrongly convicted? These are very hefty matters with lots of consequences, both seen and unseen.
In many states there is no statute of limitations for any murder, 1st, 2nd or manslaughter. Are the lives of victims more valuable in those states than they are here in New Mexico? Further, is someone who raises a statute of limitations defense against being charged in fact waiving their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination? I think in someways that goes with the territory. And if they are in fact waiving that right, would it be fair to require an admission of guilt in order to use that defense? An admission of guilt would close the case, and everyone would know who did it. True, there would not be jail time so would that be punishment enough.
I believe that all cases should be investigated no matter when they occurred. What to do with that information is something all of us need to decide.
To learn more about investigations visit http://www.everydaydetective.com
This raises a whole bunch of questions, and not just for that cold case, but for 1000's of cold cases throughout the country. Should the Braintree police reopen the shooting case? Is there a benefit to closing a murder when the shooter is facing three homicides in another state? Can modern technology be used to better assess the three shots Bishop fired in the house? Are the men at the car lot's version of events being retold to the media today accurate or has time played tricks with their memory? Finally, what about those cases where the police either out of incompetence, laziness or corruption chose not to investigate-- should the victims' families be entitled to a new investigation conducted by better trained investigators, with better tools who actually care?
Lots of questions. Some more to throw in the mix. The New Mexico Supreme Court on Wednesday is to hear oral arguments in a challenge to the fact that New Mexico had a stature of limitations for first degree felonies, rape and murder until 1997. It was actually 1993, but then that was repealed and redone as 1997. The cold case units of the larger police departments will be most directly affected by the Court's decision.
Should the ability to run DNA or interview witnesses that suddenly come forward after many, many years be pursued to close out a case if there can be no prosecution? There is absolutely no doubt that new technology has the ability to free people wrongly convicted and to catch those that got away. What is the best path to take for our society as a whole? Should we close the door and say no prosecution based upon newly discovered evidence, while at the same time stepping up the ability to clear those wrongly convicted? These are very hefty matters with lots of consequences, both seen and unseen.
In many states there is no statute of limitations for any murder, 1st, 2nd or manslaughter. Are the lives of victims more valuable in those states than they are here in New Mexico? Further, is someone who raises a statute of limitations defense against being charged in fact waiving their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination? I think in someways that goes with the territory. And if they are in fact waiving that right, would it be fair to require an admission of guilt in order to use that defense? An admission of guilt would close the case, and everyone would know who did it. True, there would not be jail time so would that be punishment enough.
I believe that all cases should be investigated no matter when they occurred. What to do with that information is something all of us need to decide.
To learn more about investigations visit http://www.everydaydetective.com
Monday, February 15, 2010
Alabama Revisited
Family members of the shooting victims have begun speaking up. Not surprisingly the focus is on the type of investigation done or not done by the University before they hired the shooter. It should not have taken these killings to convince an employer of the necessity to conduct a pre-employment background.
"I think they need to do a little more investigation when coming down to hiring teachers and things like that. Maybe looking a little deeper into their past about certain things. This is a lot coming out. ... It's a shocker," said Melissa Davis, whose stepmother was Maria Ragland Davis, on ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday. (LA Times 2/15/10).
Apparently, the professor while at Harvard was investigated for sending a pipe bomb to a faculty member there. The FBI and ATF obtained a search warrant to search her house. As in the shooting of her brother, no charges were forthcoming after that search. That case remains unsolved.
The current police chief of the police department that was called when she shot her brother is questioning how the investigation was handled, saying that charges most definitely would be brought under his watch.
I think this case is rapidly leading to a national dialogue on the importance of investigation. Not just pre-employment and what types of records should be accessible, but also how criminal investigations are conducted too. Good. These discussions are long overdue.
"I think they need to do a little more investigation when coming down to hiring teachers and things like that. Maybe looking a little deeper into their past about certain things. This is a lot coming out. ... It's a shocker," said Melissa Davis, whose stepmother was Maria Ragland Davis, on ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday. (LA Times 2/15/10).
Apparently, the professor while at Harvard was investigated for sending a pipe bomb to a faculty member there. The FBI and ATF obtained a search warrant to search her house. As in the shooting of her brother, no charges were forthcoming after that search. That case remains unsolved.
The current police chief of the police department that was called when she shot her brother is questioning how the investigation was handled, saying that charges most definitely would be brought under his watch.
I think this case is rapidly leading to a national dialogue on the importance of investigation. Not just pre-employment and what types of records should be accessible, but also how criminal investigations are conducted too. Good. These discussions are long overdue.
Information as the Great Equalizer
Today I will be a guest instructor on the topic of fact investigation at the law school clinical program. I have been doing this three times a year since 2003. Which got me thinking about one of life's great truths that I've learned as an investigator:
Information is the great equalizer. This applies not just to those in the legal profession, but to everyday regular folks too.
No this is not about idealism. Twenty-two years in the field doesn't leave much room for that.
For information to be effective, it has to be targeted both in how you search for it and in how you use it. Fishing expeditions don't work very well. Asking the boat that returns with a boatload of fish where they fished (interview) is much more efficient than just going someplace and tossing out your line (hoping and praying).
Investigation is not rocket science. I actually take martial arts with a couple of folks, whose work is pretty close to rocket science and there is most definitely a difference between what they do and what I do for a living.
The first part of the investigation process (developing and using information) is knowing what tools you have to use to accomplish your tasks. There are really only a few tools needed for investigation 1) Knowing how to locate and review public records and other documents 2) Conducting effective interviews 3) Creating visual documentation--diagrams, photos and videos and 4) Computer research which is really just a one stop shopping location for the first three tools.
The second part of the process is to focus your searches on the areas most likely to be productive. That comes with experience and the fact that there is often a tight budget to work from (investigation plan). I prefer to start when possible with the documents and then use those to identify the people to talk to.
The third part is the collection process. Get those docs, talk to the people, take those pictures and run those searches.
The fourth part of the process is analyzing the info to determine how best to use it. This is the stage where it all comes together. Without it, the first three stages of the process are meaningless. The beauty of this final stage is that good information shows you the path forward. It makes the decisions for you. Now, go get 'em.
To learn more about the investigation process be sure to visit http://www.everydaydetective.com.
Information is the great equalizer. This applies not just to those in the legal profession, but to everyday regular folks too.
No this is not about idealism. Twenty-two years in the field doesn't leave much room for that.
For information to be effective, it has to be targeted both in how you search for it and in how you use it. Fishing expeditions don't work very well. Asking the boat that returns with a boatload of fish where they fished (interview) is much more efficient than just going someplace and tossing out your line (hoping and praying).
Investigation is not rocket science. I actually take martial arts with a couple of folks, whose work is pretty close to rocket science and there is most definitely a difference between what they do and what I do for a living.
The first part of the investigation process (developing and using information) is knowing what tools you have to use to accomplish your tasks. There are really only a few tools needed for investigation 1) Knowing how to locate and review public records and other documents 2) Conducting effective interviews 3) Creating visual documentation--diagrams, photos and videos and 4) Computer research which is really just a one stop shopping location for the first three tools.
The second part of the process is to focus your searches on the areas most likely to be productive. That comes with experience and the fact that there is often a tight budget to work from (investigation plan). I prefer to start when possible with the documents and then use those to identify the people to talk to.
The third part is the collection process. Get those docs, talk to the people, take those pictures and run those searches.
The fourth part of the process is analyzing the info to determine how best to use it. This is the stage where it all comes together. Without it, the first three stages of the process are meaningless. The beauty of this final stage is that good information shows you the path forward. It makes the decisions for you. Now, go get 'em.
To learn more about the investigation process be sure to visit http://www.everydaydetective.com.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
The Citizen's United Decision and the Way Forward
Can you imagine being the receptionist at the office of Bob Perry, the Texas billionaire of Swift Boat fame on the day that the Supreme Court issued it's decision on the Citizen's United case. In addition to underwriting the costs of the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry, Perry has been one of the largest funders of GOP candidates, and not just in Texas. Every conservative interest group in the country must have hit the speed dial number for Perry's office. After all the decision came with only ten months left before the next major federal election and the flood gates just opened. I hope she got hazard pay.
Contrast that to the typical Dem response, which understandably ran to the melancholy and angry side. As a result of the decision corporations, unions and other special interests can now spend unlimited money at any time to directly oppose a candidate they don't like. Dems believing that Corporate America prefers the let 'em eat cake GOPers immediately promised to do all in their power to get the genie back in the bottle. As bad as the decision was, and I do think it was bad, I think the Dem's response was totally counter productive and if it drags on too long will put them behind the eight ball.
First of all, the genie's not going back. No matter what legislation gets introduced, the ruling is not going to be reversed. Second most Dems dream of the day when there will be widespread public funding of campaigns (Obama's skipping public funding not withstanding). But, that's not going to happen unless the Dem's beat the GOPers at their own game. Tossing in the towel before the match has even begun only makes Dems appear to the independent voters like they are incapable of competing. How can you beat 'em when you won't take them on? Unless the GOPers get their heads handed to them during the game they'll never agree to widespread public funding. (Sorry for all the sports analogies).
Initially, my response to the Dems response was to post a video of John Belushi's great speech in Animal House on my Facebook page and ask, "What would Senator Blutarsky Do?" Certainly, he wouldn't have quit. Well, It was kind of funny and it fit the situation.
Okay, so what's this got to do with investigation? Opp-research is investigation and it works! I know this first hand from my own race for the state house in 2004 and the over 100 races in which I have provided research to campaigns and interest groups. Except for first time voters, voters vote for the lesser of two evils. Opp-research makes it clear just who is the greater evil.
The problem for Dems tends to be that Opp-research is left to the rookies as an after thought. Young people are so good with the Internet after all, whereas GOPers like Bob Perry use the pros. So the question for the Dem interest groups is this, "Do you think your policies will be implemented if the GOPers win?" If so, then leave the investigation work to amateurs. But if not, it's time rethink the approach. There's less than 9 months til the election. Time to focus.
Want to learn more about how you can use investigation techniques to safeguard your family and your money. Visit http://www.everydaydetective.com.
Contrast that to the typical Dem response, which understandably ran to the melancholy and angry side. As a result of the decision corporations, unions and other special interests can now spend unlimited money at any time to directly oppose a candidate they don't like. Dems believing that Corporate America prefers the let 'em eat cake GOPers immediately promised to do all in their power to get the genie back in the bottle. As bad as the decision was, and I do think it was bad, I think the Dem's response was totally counter productive and if it drags on too long will put them behind the eight ball.
First of all, the genie's not going back. No matter what legislation gets introduced, the ruling is not going to be reversed. Second most Dems dream of the day when there will be widespread public funding of campaigns (Obama's skipping public funding not withstanding). But, that's not going to happen unless the Dem's beat the GOPers at their own game. Tossing in the towel before the match has even begun only makes Dems appear to the independent voters like they are incapable of competing. How can you beat 'em when you won't take them on? Unless the GOPers get their heads handed to them during the game they'll never agree to widespread public funding. (Sorry for all the sports analogies).
Initially, my response to the Dems response was to post a video of John Belushi's great speech in Animal House on my Facebook page and ask, "What would Senator Blutarsky Do?" Certainly, he wouldn't have quit. Well, It was kind of funny and it fit the situation.
Okay, so what's this got to do with investigation? Opp-research is investigation and it works! I know this first hand from my own race for the state house in 2004 and the over 100 races in which I have provided research to campaigns and interest groups. Except for first time voters, voters vote for the lesser of two evils. Opp-research makes it clear just who is the greater evil.
The problem for Dems tends to be that Opp-research is left to the rookies as an after thought. Young people are so good with the Internet after all, whereas GOPers like Bob Perry use the pros. So the question for the Dem interest groups is this, "Do you think your policies will be implemented if the GOPers win?" If so, then leave the investigation work to amateurs. But if not, it's time rethink the approach. There's less than 9 months til the election. Time to focus.
Want to learn more about how you can use investigation techniques to safeguard your family and your money. Visit http://www.everydaydetective.com.
Additional Thoughts on Backgrounds
The shooting in Alabama got me thinking about conducting background investigations in a mobile society. The shooter migrated from one region of the country to another. Regardless of the reason that you might need to conduct a background investigation, be it for use in a court case, prior to hiring, due diligence research on a prospective business partner or opp-research on a political candidate, conducting a search in the current county of residence of the subject is no longer sufficient.
When I first learned how to conduct background investigations while working for Keith Rohman in Los Angeles at Public Interest Investigations, it was in the dinosaur days before fee for service databases and the Internet (sorry Keith, but that was a long time ago- I don't think I even had any gray hairs yet). We relied heavily on microfiche cards to run names for cases, check for property and other searches. When we didn't have the suitable microfiche, we gumshoed it over to the government entity that possessed the indexes that we needed to search. We could check those sources while downtown to pull court files so it was still an efficient process. But, that was fine since the vast majority of background searches needed to be countywide only.
It no longer is. People move where the jobs are. The family and neighborhood ties that once kept people in the same community for a lifetime are outweighed by the need to find employment. Just as our society has changed so too has the range required to do a background check. With the Internet, fee for service databases and the fact that some states, such as New Mexico, Arizona, Wisconsin and Colorado have accessible statewide case indexes you can on occasion conduct out of area searches without too much more effort. But in older areas of the country you will seldom find a searchable statewide database.
Further, identifying a case is only one component of a background. You have to see the actual information and get copies of any relevant documents. Plus, you may need to contact people identified in those documents regarding their dealing with your subject (Keith referred to those people as walking talking sources). So, to make your background exhaustive in scope you might find yourself having to locate and interview people clear across the country.
So how do you go about doing that? Well, if you have a legally permissible purpose under the GLBA you can run a fee for service database, which will give you the different cities of residence. You can then check for courts in the county where that city is located. You can also, if its a job or tenant application include info on prior residences or in the case of a contractor, ask where else they have lived. You can also pyramid off of information found in local documents like a divorce file that reference back to other locations.
Many jurisdictions that don't have a searchable database can help you over the phone if you approach the clerk with the right attitude and catch them on a good day. Others may only be able to search and make copies for a fee. They can then mail or fax the copies to you. When dealing with other jurisdictions it will require more time and money. It's something to factor in order to make sure the research is done the right way. On too many occasions, a request for a background is little more than an after thought. But, to do it right it shouldn't be.
For more information on how to conduct a background don't forget to check out The Everyday Detective Information System at http://www.everydaydetective.com.
When I first learned how to conduct background investigations while working for Keith Rohman in Los Angeles at Public Interest Investigations, it was in the dinosaur days before fee for service databases and the Internet (sorry Keith, but that was a long time ago- I don't think I even had any gray hairs yet). We relied heavily on microfiche cards to run names for cases, check for property and other searches. When we didn't have the suitable microfiche, we gumshoed it over to the government entity that possessed the indexes that we needed to search. We could check those sources while downtown to pull court files so it was still an efficient process. But, that was fine since the vast majority of background searches needed to be countywide only.
It no longer is. People move where the jobs are. The family and neighborhood ties that once kept people in the same community for a lifetime are outweighed by the need to find employment. Just as our society has changed so too has the range required to do a background check. With the Internet, fee for service databases and the fact that some states, such as New Mexico, Arizona, Wisconsin and Colorado have accessible statewide case indexes you can on occasion conduct out of area searches without too much more effort. But in older areas of the country you will seldom find a searchable statewide database.
Further, identifying a case is only one component of a background. You have to see the actual information and get copies of any relevant documents. Plus, you may need to contact people identified in those documents regarding their dealing with your subject (Keith referred to those people as walking talking sources). So, to make your background exhaustive in scope you might find yourself having to locate and interview people clear across the country.
So how do you go about doing that? Well, if you have a legally permissible purpose under the GLBA you can run a fee for service database, which will give you the different cities of residence. You can then check for courts in the county where that city is located. You can also, if its a job or tenant application include info on prior residences or in the case of a contractor, ask where else they have lived. You can also pyramid off of information found in local documents like a divorce file that reference back to other locations.
Many jurisdictions that don't have a searchable database can help you over the phone if you approach the clerk with the right attitude and catch them on a good day. Others may only be able to search and make copies for a fee. They can then mail or fax the copies to you. When dealing with other jurisdictions it will require more time and money. It's something to factor in order to make sure the research is done the right way. On too many occasions, a request for a background is little more than an after thought. But, to do it right it shouldn't be.
For more information on how to conduct a background don't forget to check out The Everyday Detective Information System at http://www.everydaydetective.com.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The Alabama Shooting
The national media is ablaze with stories on the tragic shooting death of three faculty members at a university in Alabama by a fellow professor. It's now been unearthed that this professor fatally shot her own brother to death twenty plus years ago.
The story raises all types of questions, including how the initial homicide was handled by the police department in the suburban Boston area where the shooter was raised and how the handling of that case may have impacted the effectiveness of any subsequent background check. After all situations that lead to arrests but not charges typically cannot be the basis for denying someone employment. In some states arrests are not even public record. The shooter went on to Harvard University and a bright future, despite that it appears she may have shot her brother following an argument, fired an additional round into the ceiling and then tried to car jack someone by pointing the same weapon at them. Pretty hardcore conduct. But, she was never charged or even booked for the killing and her subsequent actions.
The professor is a poster child for why expungement is a bad idea. Legislators, who are often attorneys seeking to make extra money, put forward legislation to expunge records of criminal conduct. Because she was never charged in the shooting, the professor could have had her record expunged-- and get this-- if the investigating officer felt she should have been charged and goes public with information about the shooting-- he could be charged.
A Background investigation is a great tool for all of us to use. It is simply the collection and analysis of information regarding a person's or business's prior conduct to ascertain their future behavior. Backgrounds are effective because most people and companies don't change. Sure there are the rare instances where someone changes, I once worked with a man who spent 7 years in prison for a shootout with the police, but went on to be pardoned and to become certified by the US Department of Justice to help people with drug addictions, but the vast majority of people and businesses just keep on doing the things they have done in the past.
How many times have we heard of a remodeling contractor who bilks unsuspecting homeowners. Taking the time and effort to research that contractor almost always bring prior similar actions to light. Would you hire him if you had access to that info? Most definitely not. Is that a bad thing? No, its helpful beyond belief. If no one hires him, he'll go out of business!
Back to the professor. This story will no doubt lead to lots of finger pointing and litigation. As it should. It should also raise the far more important question of whether the public had the right to know all about the shooter's history. I think it's time for the public to speak up and tell their legislators to change the laws that allow violent pasts to be hidden from public view.
In the next post. I'll examine background investigations and discuss different approaches to use. Sure hindsight is 20/20. But let's learn from it.
To learn more about how you can use background investigations to protect your money and your loved ones. Visit: http://www.everydaydetective.com.
The story raises all types of questions, including how the initial homicide was handled by the police department in the suburban Boston area where the shooter was raised and how the handling of that case may have impacted the effectiveness of any subsequent background check. After all situations that lead to arrests but not charges typically cannot be the basis for denying someone employment. In some states arrests are not even public record. The shooter went on to Harvard University and a bright future, despite that it appears she may have shot her brother following an argument, fired an additional round into the ceiling and then tried to car jack someone by pointing the same weapon at them. Pretty hardcore conduct. But, she was never charged or even booked for the killing and her subsequent actions.
The professor is a poster child for why expungement is a bad idea. Legislators, who are often attorneys seeking to make extra money, put forward legislation to expunge records of criminal conduct. Because she was never charged in the shooting, the professor could have had her record expunged-- and get this-- if the investigating officer felt she should have been charged and goes public with information about the shooting-- he could be charged.
A Background investigation is a great tool for all of us to use. It is simply the collection and analysis of information regarding a person's or business's prior conduct to ascertain their future behavior. Backgrounds are effective because most people and companies don't change. Sure there are the rare instances where someone changes, I once worked with a man who spent 7 years in prison for a shootout with the police, but went on to be pardoned and to become certified by the US Department of Justice to help people with drug addictions, but the vast majority of people and businesses just keep on doing the things they have done in the past.
How many times have we heard of a remodeling contractor who bilks unsuspecting homeowners. Taking the time and effort to research that contractor almost always bring prior similar actions to light. Would you hire him if you had access to that info? Most definitely not. Is that a bad thing? No, its helpful beyond belief. If no one hires him, he'll go out of business!
Back to the professor. This story will no doubt lead to lots of finger pointing and litigation. As it should. It should also raise the far more important question of whether the public had the right to know all about the shooter's history. I think it's time for the public to speak up and tell their legislators to change the laws that allow violent pasts to be hidden from public view.
In the next post. I'll examine background investigations and discuss different approaches to use. Sure hindsight is 20/20. But let's learn from it.
To learn more about how you can use background investigations to protect your money and your loved ones. Visit: http://www.everydaydetective.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)