Sunday, July 31, 2011

Statement Analysis: A Cup of Coffee






A man reported his car stolen in the middle of the day. It was a Mercedes 500SL.   He was agitated with police who, after asking him questions, asked him to write out what happened.  He appeared as a self-important, too busy to be bothered, kind of guy.   He refused at first, stating that he had to get back to work and that it was their responsibility.  One officer pressed him and finally said, "Sir, I am concerned that you refuse to put your answers into writing."  Feeling challenged, he wrote the following: 

"Got into the car and drove around for a while.  Car parked on 5th and Main. Got coffee.  Who knows what happened after I left the car?  This is for you guys to figure out.  This crap happens all the time here and it is why people like me don't like to come downtown.  I am very busy and you need to do your jobs. The vehicle is gone and if you don't do your job, then hard working people like me are stuck."

Now the same statement with analysis:

Got into the car and drove around for a while.  Car parked on 5th and Main. 


Note the missing pronoun.  Pronouns are instinctive in language and in Analysis, they are vital.  Here, the pronoun is missing which suggests that the subject is removing himself from the situation.  


Question:  Did he state that he got into the car and drove it around for awhile?
Answer:    No, he didn't. 


The subject is dead; the statement is alive.  If he does not tell us that he drove the car, we should not conclude that he drove the car.  We are to hear what he tells us and not interpret for him.  Lying is stressful and it is avoided by withholding information.  
Note "car parked" is passive.  He does not say that he parked the car and we know a car cannot park itself.  


At this point, the analyst is asking himself or herself why the subject is distancing himself from both driving and parking the car.  Was he the driver?  Was it someone else?  The analyst is now on the lookout for someone else involved.  


Got coffee.  




In an interview, or when analyzing a statement, we highlight "coffee".

Why?

Simply for the interview follow up question:

"Was anyone with you?"

Crazy little stat:  coffee is often brought up in statements indicating the presence of another person.

If you see or hear "coffee", the proper question is then, "was someone else with you?" as many people who feel the need (importance) to bring up "coffee" do so because they are remembering being with someone else.  Coffee is a bit of a social drink, besides just an eye opener.  In any situation, lots of people drink coffee alone.  We flag coffee because it was important enough for the subject to mention, therefore, it is important for us.  This is a principle:

Always note insignificant, seemingly unimportant details added.  An unimportant detail is deemed 'doubly' important to us.  

Here. the investigation did reveal that he met someone for coffee which is why he added it to his statement.  The conversation over coffee, in a diner, was extremely stressful to him, which is why he made it during the giving of the statement. 





Who knows what happened after I left the car?  


Always flag a question found in a statement is important.  Here, he asks a question that he can answer. 




This is for you guys to figure out.  


This is a truthful statement.  Note that they must "figure" it out; not that they must find the car. 




This crap happens all the time here and it is why people like me don't like to come downtown.


The language reveals high-mindedness.  It did not take long to find out why work is so important to him as the investigation showed he lost his job and his wife filed for divorce. 




  I am very busy and you need to do your jobs


Being "very" busy is sensitive.  He did not have a job, was behind on payments, and terribly frustrated about his crumbling image and hoped to cash in on insurance. The man he met over coffee was to make the car 'disappear' to Canada and then to the Middle East for resale.  It was a foolish plot. 


The vehicle is gone and if you don't do your job, then hard working people like me are stuck."


The "car" is now a "vehicle".  The change of language should always be noted.  If there is no justification for the change, deception is likely present.  Here, it may have been a "car" while he was involved with it, (in spite of distancing himself from it early on) but now that it is "gone" it is only a "vehicle" of which to get insurance money for. 


He was arrested after cracking in the interview when the Interviewee kept going back to the cup of coffee, which made the subject nervous, while others made quick phone calls (including to his estranged wife).  He was in a rush to get out of the station because he knew the more he spoke, the more he would give away.  


Jobless and facing a divorce now looked more appealing than what he now faces. 

Police Officer Derek Colling VideoTaped

Police inquiry reveals violations in arrest, beating of videographer

BY MIKE BLASKY
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Posted: Jul. 29, 2011 | 8:08 p.m.
Updated: Jul. 30, 2011 | 7:18 a.m.
A Las Vegas police officer under investigation for the videotaped beating of a man in March violated several Metropolitan Police Department policies, an internal investigation found.


"Turn the camera off for me" the officer is heard saying on the video tape.  It is repeated with the additional words "for me".  The repetition itself shows sensitivity.  Why would this be "for me"?  As you hear Oficer Derek Colling's choice of wording, the answer may emerge. 
Mitchell Crooks' complaint about officer Derek Colling's excessive force was sustained, Deputy Chief Gary Schofield said Friday.
The specific policy violations will not be released until the case is finalized.
Crooks, 36, received a letter from the Internal Affairs Bureau notifying him of the findings earlier this week.
He said he was pleasantly surprised.
"It seems like they're saying he was guilty, which is what I've been saying," Crooks said. "I really hope he gets fired."
Colling has been on paid suspension since April 1.
Multiple supervisors in Colling's chain of command will review the internal affairs report and decide his punishment, if any, Schofield said.
That review could take several weeks.
If Colling's supervisors recommend his firing, he will go before a pre-termination board for a final appeal. The harshest punishment short of firing is a 40-hour unpaid suspension.
Crooks' lawyer, David Otto, intends to sue Colling and the Police Department.
Otto wrote a letter in April to Sheriff Douglas Gillespie demanding $500,000 to cover Crooks' medical care, pain and suffering. The Police Department has not paid anything, he said.
He intends to send another letter to Gillespie.
"Mr. Sheriff, show us the difference between what the officers did to Mitchell Crooks that night and kidnapping, beating and robbery," Otto said.

Note the order:
1.  Kidnapping
2.  Beating
3.  Robbery


Kidnapping is whenever a person is illegally held against his will.  
Beating is an assault
Robbery is the taking or destroying of another's property 
On the night of March 20, Crooks, 36, was in his driveway, near East Desert Inn Road and South Maryland Parkway, videotaping police as they investigated a burglary report across the street. Crooks said that when he refused to stop filming, Colling arrested and beat him, with much of the altercation recorded by the camera.
The video went viral on the Internet, and local activists and national "cop watch" blogs scrutiznized Colling's actions.
Local American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Allen Lichtenstein reviewed the video and found clear policy violations.
"It raises serious questions about whether the officer used good judgment and whether he was properly trained," Lichtenstein said. "Those questions require answers."
Rank-and-file officers who spoke to the Review-Journal after the incident were as demoralized as the public was incensed.
"The majority of us think Colling made a mistake," one patrol officer said. "All the officers I talked to understand that citizens will see this video, and yeah, we know it looks bad."

Note the language:   it was a "mistake" which is minimizing and that it "looks" bad, rather than "is" bad.  Just this short sentence gives insight into the thinking.  Note that the "majority" think it was a "mistake"; what does the minority think?
Neither Crooks nor Colling was a stranger to controversy.
Colling has been involved in two fatal shootings in his 5½ years as a Las Vegas police officer.
In 2006, he and four other officers shot Shawn Jacob Collins after the 43-year-old man pulled a gun at an east valley gas station.
In 2009, Colling shot and killed Tanner Chamberlain, a mentally ill 15-year-old who was holding a knife at his mother's neck and waving it at officers.
Both shootings were ruled justified by Clark County coroner's juries.
Chamberlain's mother, Evie Oquendo, sued Colling and the Police Department in May.
When the lawsuit was filed, Oquendo's lawyer asked why Colling was still working as an officer.
"He's killed two people in 5½ years and beaten one guy up that we know of," Brent Bryson said.
Crooks made headlines in 2002 when he videotaped two Inglewood, Calif., police officers beating a 16-year-old boy.
Crooks first tried to sell that tape and refused to give it to prosecutors. He then was jailed on old warrants from drunken driving and petty theft charges. Civil rights advocates decried the jailing as retribution.
He has lived in Las Vegas since 2003 and worked as a freelance videographer.
Crooks, who still carries his camera, said he was stopped last month by a Las Vegas officer who recognized him .
He was issued a ticket for no proof of insurance that was later dismissed, Crooks said.
Contact reporter Mike Blasky at mblasky@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0283.

Are citizens safer, or more at risk, from having  Derek Colling armed?  If he is retained on the force, he should undergo a psych eval.  

Lawyers Need Money, Too

Cancer-stricken WTC worker gets $0 settlement check

Last Updated: 8:26 AM, July 31, 2011
Posted: 2:14 AM, July 31, 2011

Cancer-stricken Ground Zero worker Edgar Galvis has finally received a compensation check -- for zero dollars.
The 51-year-old Queens man, who suffered sinus problems and then throat cancer after months of removing toxic debris from the World Financial Center, was relieved to get a check in the mail for his court settlement with Merrill Lynch, whose offices he had cleaned.
But he was stunned when he saw the amount: $0.00.
His award had been $10,005, but his lawyers at the firm Worby, Groner, Edelman & Napoli Bern lopped off $2,579 for unitemized legal expenses.
'I THOUGHT IT WAS A JOKE': Edgar Galvis, a Ground Zero worker who has throat cancer, holds the settlement check he got from a law firm.
ANGEL CHEVRESTT
'I THOUGHT IT WAS A JOKE': Edgar Galvis, a Ground Zero worker who has throat cancer, holds the settlement check he got from a law firm.
TOILING: Galvis spent months clearing offices of debris at Ground Zero.
TOILING: Galvis spent months clearing offices of debris at Ground Zero.
Then they took a 33.3 percent fee of $2,124.
They also subtracted $352, a fee to the lawyer who referred him.
The remaining $4,950 was withheld for unspecified "liens," the letter says. Galvis thinks this was repayment of workers' compensation for aid.
"I have hit rock bottom," said Galvis, who is jobless and $30,000 in debt. "I was expecting a check, and you can imagine how I felt when I opened it. I couldn't believe it. I thought it was a joke."
The father of two, who lives in Glendale with his fiancée and her two kids, said he had to sell his car and relies on relatives for rent. "I get collection agencies whenever I open the mail. What little credit I had I don't have anymore," he said.
Galvis said he arrived in New York from Bogota, Colombia, in February 2001. Hired by contractors clearing dust and rubble from Merrill Lynch offices next to Ground Zero, Galvis said he toiled 16 hours a day for six months in a jumpsuit and paper mask that would tear when he sweated. At $8 an hour, he made close to $800 a week.
In May 2005, a friend gave him a business card passed out by the law firm. A representative came to his home.
"The man told me that more than likely I will get sick and I would get 60 percent of whatever he won," Galvis said. "He even mentioned the words 'millions of dollars.' "
In April 2010, he got a $10,000 offer. A letter from the law firm said he could expect about $5,000 after expenses and fees. It warned that if his case went to trial and he lost, he could owe the firm up to $100,000 in costs. He took the settlement.
His claim cited chronic rhinosinusitis and sleep disorders. He was diagnosed with throat cancer last August and began chemotherapy and radiation. But it was "too late" to adjust his claim.
"It was our pleasure to represent you in this matter," the law firm says in a note that arrived with the zero-dollar check.
It was no pleasure for Galvis.
"I think they are taking advantage of the ignorance of people such as myself," he said.
The total Merrill settlement came to $18 million for about 400 clients, documents show.
Galvis is one of nearly 10,000 Ground Zero workers represented by Napoli Bern, which led talks for a separate settlement with the city for $712 million.
Anger is also stirring among those clients, who have started getting checks for 40 percent of their total awards. Several told The Post the payouts were less than those estimated by Napoli Bern. Some said they felt duped.
A partner in the firm, Paul Napoli, did not respond to a request for comment.
Getting to $0:
$10.005
$2,579 for unitemized legal expenses
- $2,124 for a 33.3% legal fee
-$352 fee to a lawyer who referred him
- $4,950 for unspecified “liens”
=$0


Missing 8 Year Old Found

Please note that on the 911 call, the step mother calls; not the father.  She said he was too upset.  This is a red flag.  Also she identifies that she left the night before her birthday and was found with a bruise on her face.  This strongly suggest child abuse.  The father should be investigated. 


8-Year-Old Missing Girl Found 9 Miles From Home

Girl Disappeared From Bed Overnight, Discovered Wandering Barefoot 7 Hours Later

POSTED: 9:29 am PDT July 27, 2011
UPDATED: 5:47 pm PDT July 29, 2011
An 8-year-old girl disappeared from her bed overnight, but was found later Wednesday morning wandering barefoot with a bruise on her face, nine miles away from home.
The last time the girl was seen, her family was putting her to bed at 9 p.m. Tuesday at their home on Loch Lomand Drive. But when her parents checked on her at 3:45 a.m., she was gone.
"It just started out she was missing, then it was abducted," said David Jones, the girl's grandfather. "Then it was just a lot of crying and stuff and it was hard to understand wht they were saying."

The girl was found seven hours later, when construction crews saw wandering barefoot with a bruise on her face nine miles away on Eucalyptus Drive in East Bakersfield.
911 Call (Edited) - 8-Year-Old Missing Girl Found 9 Miles From Home
"I saw her coming by right there in the field alone," said worker Guillermo Belmond. "She was just walking, kind of like with her face down."
Someone took the girl to get water, and then asked a neighbor to help her.
"He brought her to us and we took her into the house to get her something to eat because she was saying she was kind of hungry," said Isaias Duarte, who called the police. "And the police showed up right away."
Neighbors say they don't understand how a child went missing from a home full of people, with a yard full of dogs, and a high gate.
"How she just went missing out of the house at night worries me because there's never been anything like this going on in this neighborhood," said neighbor D.J. Nolan.
Nonetheless, neighbors said all that matters is that the girl is safe, and if someone did take her, that person is brought to justice.
"I've said many prayers for her and the family," said neighbor Nicholas Miranda. "It's a very traumatic case, I hope the girl is alright. I can't imagine what's going through that poor child's head right now. She probably needs a lot of love and attention from her family right now."
The girl was taken to Kern Medical Center for observation. Several hours later, investigators are still teating her home as a crime scene, trying to determine if a stranger or a family member took her, or if it's something else entirely