THOUGHTS ON INVESTIGATIONS FROM AN ARMCHAIR...
Part of the reason for this blog and this website is to give those of you who have never been professional investigators a little big of a back stage pass and learn how FBI agents, detectives and other agents actually start to investigate a case -- and how the process and evaluate evidence.
Frequently people wonder where an investigator even starts. That's a very relevant question and leads me into a little big of a discussion about the recent fascination people all over the world have had with solving crimes, and the implications of that fascination.
After 25 years as an FBI agent, I can tell you that from my experience, good investigators obviously start at zero and begin gathering facts as quickly as they can absorb them. Information (true and false) is usually plentiful in the first few hours, and tapers off gradually after that. Cold cases have reached the point where the information has stopped. Sometimes for years. Alien involvement or use of a psychic usually gets postulated by somebody after 12 months of fruitless investigation; you can set your watch by it.
So, going back to your new case; you've arrived at the crime scene (or been handed a case file), and you start assimilating information. You take this initial information dump and try to imagine what most likely might have happened; a scenario which would explain and agree with all the facts you have at that moment. As an example, if you respond to a bank alarm just in time to see a man running out of the bank wearing a mask and a wig, with a gun in one hand, and a stack of cash in the other, you probably already have most of the facts you need for a conviction. That's not how it usually happens. Usually it's, "Nobody's seen my daughter in days and her apartment is empty and unlocked. Where is she?"
So, you begin by creating an investigative theory, or at least a direction to look. For instance, with the missing daughter from the previous paragraph, statistically, your first question should be, "Is she married or does she have a boyfriend?" Statistics and probability play a huge part in initial investigations. They help create investigative theories. Some people call those "hunches." Your first investigative theory though, might be so vague that "hunch" might be too strong a word. But based on your (early) investigative theory, you begin collecting evidence and information along those lines. Unless it’s a wildly obvious case or you’re clairvoyant or have a witness, new facts will almost immediately contradict your first hunch; partially or completely.
But the facts that contradict your hunch will send you in another direction. Evidence is exciting, even when it tells you you're wrong. As you go forward with the investigation, the FACTS continue to eliminate or modify your investigative theories as you go. If you’re doing it right, you will be contradicted daily, or several times a day in the early parts of an investigation. But as you go forward, and your investigative theory becomes more informed and therefore accurate, and valid evidence keeps coming in, you will see fewer and fewer contradictions as you go along.
If after days, weeks or months, things seem to be going right and you’re not being contradicted (as much), and it appears you’re on the right track, and you’re feeling fairly certain of your conclusions, you start to think, “I have the best job in the world. I am an investigator.” You ruminate on your brilliance, savor your coffee, and walk through the squad bay like a receiver who has just caught the winning touchdown. Then inevitably, out of the blue, your entire theory is blown out of the water by a single piece of evidence, or a single witness.
This is when you choke on your coffee, retreat into your office or cubicle and wonder, “Why did I ever want to be an investigator?”
(This point, by the way, is when most wrongful convictions begin. Occasionally, an investigator or a detective, can’t allow themselves to be wrong; can’t accept the embarrassment in the squad bay, can't accept the ego or professional hit, and they begin to make the evidence suit their theory, rather than the evidence proving the truth. That's malpractice, and that's how and why innocent people go to prison.)
What I am trying to do in these blogs is give the reader my thoughts on certain cases I hope are of interest to the, and explain what I, as an (ex-)FBI Agent, would be thinking and where I would be going with the information I had at this point. Many of my hunches will be wrong – that’s how it works. Some of them will be right, hopefully.
Many in the social and network media have decried "armchair sleuths" recently. I think interest in investigations started with the CSI shows decades ago, grew with "Making a Murderer," and continues now just about everywhere. It got to the point that when I was in the FBI and we were prosecuting a case, jurors who were devotees of these shows would ask the judge why we didn't have DNA proof of certain cases (when DNA proof was not needed). But I prefer educated jurors to naïve jurors.
I have seen in the last 10 - 15 years, innocent people released from prison largely due to the attention brought to a case by otherwise uninvolved civilians. Much, much good can come from public interest in fair and impartial investigations and trials. The obvious potential downside is vigilantism; that point when those without all the facts (or even those with all the facts) take it upon themselves to execute "judgement." Another dark side is the Internet hatred and trolling between factions which believe in innocence for a person that a different faction believes is guilty. Both of these situations are ugly.
I try to remind myself constantly that I no longer have access to all the evidence (and I miss that.) So what I write in this blog are theories, based on my experience in the FBI (see below), and my conjecture should not be confused with fact. I hope to help educate the public on how real investigations are, or should be, conducted -- and to help the public understand how investigations work. Maybe that would be a good thing.
Frequently people wonder where an investigator even starts. That's a very relevant question and leads me into a little big of a discussion about the recent fascination people all over the world have had with solving crimes, and the implications of that fascination.
After 25 years as an FBI agent, I can tell you that from my experience, good investigators obviously start at zero and begin gathering facts as quickly as they can absorb them. Information (true and false) is usually plentiful in the first few hours, and tapers off gradually after that. Cold cases have reached the point where the information has stopped. Sometimes for years. Alien involvement or use of a psychic usually gets postulated by somebody after 12 months of fruitless investigation; you can set your watch by it.
So, going back to your new case; you've arrived at the crime scene (or been handed a case file), and you start assimilating information. You take this initial information dump and try to imagine what most likely might have happened; a scenario which would explain and agree with all the facts you have at that moment. As an example, if you respond to a bank alarm just in time to see a man running out of the bank wearing a mask and a wig, with a gun in one hand, and a stack of cash in the other, you probably already have most of the facts you need for a conviction. That's not how it usually happens. Usually it's, "Nobody's seen my daughter in days and her apartment is empty and unlocked. Where is she?"
So, you begin by creating an investigative theory, or at least a direction to look. For instance, with the missing daughter from the previous paragraph, statistically, your first question should be, "Is she married or does she have a boyfriend?" Statistics and probability play a huge part in initial investigations. They help create investigative theories. Some people call those "hunches." Your first investigative theory though, might be so vague that "hunch" might be too strong a word. But based on your (early) investigative theory, you begin collecting evidence and information along those lines. Unless it’s a wildly obvious case or you’re clairvoyant or have a witness, new facts will almost immediately contradict your first hunch; partially or completely.
But the facts that contradict your hunch will send you in another direction. Evidence is exciting, even when it tells you you're wrong. As you go forward with the investigation, the FACTS continue to eliminate or modify your investigative theories as you go. If you’re doing it right, you will be contradicted daily, or several times a day in the early parts of an investigation. But as you go forward, and your investigative theory becomes more informed and therefore accurate, and valid evidence keeps coming in, you will see fewer and fewer contradictions as you go along.
If after days, weeks or months, things seem to be going right and you’re not being contradicted (as much), and it appears you’re on the right track, and you’re feeling fairly certain of your conclusions, you start to think, “I have the best job in the world. I am an investigator.” You ruminate on your brilliance, savor your coffee, and walk through the squad bay like a receiver who has just caught the winning touchdown. Then inevitably, out of the blue, your entire theory is blown out of the water by a single piece of evidence, or a single witness.
This is when you choke on your coffee, retreat into your office or cubicle and wonder, “Why did I ever want to be an investigator?”
(This point, by the way, is when most wrongful convictions begin. Occasionally, an investigator or a detective, can’t allow themselves to be wrong; can’t accept the embarrassment in the squad bay, can't accept the ego or professional hit, and they begin to make the evidence suit their theory, rather than the evidence proving the truth. That's malpractice, and that's how and why innocent people go to prison.)
What I am trying to do in these blogs is give the reader my thoughts on certain cases I hope are of interest to the, and explain what I, as an (ex-)FBI Agent, would be thinking and where I would be going with the information I had at this point. Many of my hunches will be wrong – that’s how it works. Some of them will be right, hopefully.
Many in the social and network media have decried "armchair sleuths" recently. I think interest in investigations started with the CSI shows decades ago, grew with "Making a Murderer," and continues now just about everywhere. It got to the point that when I was in the FBI and we were prosecuting a case, jurors who were devotees of these shows would ask the judge why we didn't have DNA proof of certain cases (when DNA proof was not needed). But I prefer educated jurors to naïve jurors.
I have seen in the last 10 - 15 years, innocent people released from prison largely due to the attention brought to a case by otherwise uninvolved civilians. Much, much good can come from public interest in fair and impartial investigations and trials. The obvious potential downside is vigilantism; that point when those without all the facts (or even those with all the facts) take it upon themselves to execute "judgement." Another dark side is the Internet hatred and trolling between factions which believe in innocence for a person that a different faction believes is guilty. Both of these situations are ugly.
I try to remind myself constantly that I no longer have access to all the evidence (and I miss that.) So what I write in this blog are theories, based on my experience in the FBI (see below), and my conjecture should not be confused with fact. I hope to help educate the public on how real investigations are, or should be, conducted -- and to help the public understand how investigations work. Maybe that would be a good thing.
“Special Agent Man by Steve Moore is an utterly fascinating, thrilling, and at times humorous memoir of the life and adventures of a top FBI agent. This book is the real deal and I highly recommend it.”
—Douglas Preston, New York Times best-selling author, and co-author of The Monster of Florence “If you've ever wished you had a best friend who spent a lifetime in the FBI and could regale with stories...now you do. Steve Moore is one of the good guys. He's been there and you'll believe you were right there with him during every adventure.” —Bob Hamer, veteran undercover FBI agent and the author of Targets Down "A love letter to a dangerous career. Fascinating insights...an unpretentious account of a proud career in service to public safety." —Kirkus Reviews "Bolstered by its striking true-life storyline, his memoir is a gripping read." —South China Morning Post |
Steve MooreAuthor and CNN Law Enforcement Contributor Steve Moore served in the FBI as a Special Agent and Supervisory Special Agent for 25 years.
His investigative experience runs the gamut from murders on federal lands, to bank robberies, kidnappings, multi-million dollar fraud schemes, mass school shootings, white supremacist terrorism throughout the U.S. and Al Qaeda investigations around the world, from Europe to Karachi, Pakistan to Jakarta, Indonesia. His investigations have won several awards from the U.S. Department of Justice. In addition to his achievements as a case agent, Special Agent Moore operated as an undercover agent on several large, classified cases; a SWAT Team Operator and sniper; a covert surveillance team operative, and piloted FBI helicopters and airplanes. He is considered an expert in tactical weapons and pistols. Steve was chosen by the FBI to lecture and proctor counter-terrorism classes at the International Law Enforcement Academy in Bangkok, Thailand; the Philippine National Police Training Institute in Manila, Philippines; and spearheaded creation of a Counter-Terrorism curriculum for Caribbean Nations in the U.S. Virgin Islands during his time as Assistant Legal Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Nassau, Bahamas. After the FBI, Steve formed Moore Investigations International, devoted to the release of Americans wrongly held overseas, and those wrongly convicted in the United States. He was twice called to testify before congress regarding Americans held unlawfully in foreign prisons. Congress submitted one of Steve's investigative reports to the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights. He appears regularly on CNN, CNN International, and Headline News. He has also appeared on every major U.S. network, as well as the BBC, ITV, and Italy's RAI, among others. |