The nature of investigative works demands that the investigator possess and practice some form of organization. The investigator must routinely process countless pieces of information while conducting an investigation. This information includes written reports, witness statements, photographs, and analysis information. All of these details must be organized in a useable form in order to allow the investigator to fully utilize the information. Likewise, this organization must carry over into the final investigative report in order to allow the client to follow and understand the case. If the case is something that is done that goes to court - the investigator must be able to convey all of these pieces of information in an understandable, chronological sequence in order for the court to reach the same level of understanding and conclusions as the investigator. This trait can also be developed and is often enhanced through practice and training.

Legal Knowledge

The successful investigator must have a thorough working knowledge of the law in order to be effective. Legal restrictions must be acknowledged at all times. By understanding and correctly applying the law, the investigator ensures that the final case will stand the legal test of the court. The investigator does not want to implicate the wrong person, because the social consequences for someone who is falsely accused can be devastating. In addition, the civil consequences for falsely accusing an innocent person can also be particularly harsh.

Tenacity

A good investigator is tenacious and does not readily accept an answer that does not fit the facts. The investigator must continue to seek answers when the sum total does not seem to add up. There will be times when the investigator is not absolutely sure who the culprit is, or if the culprit is absolutely guilty. A good investigator seeks out the truth and does not readily give up.


Investigative Ethics

This is the foundation upon which an investigator’s reputation is built. An investigator must always perform his/her job in a professional and ethical manner. Lying, or distorting of the facts, is simply never acceptable business practice. Regardless how strong the urge might be to consider the use of falsified testimony or fictitious evidence, the investigator must never resort to these lowly and undeniably illegal tactics.

• 1 comments »

Communication skills are an essential part of an investigator’s job. In order to be successful, the investigator must possess and be thoroughly skilled in both oral and written communication.

Note: Communications and interviewing techniques will be covered in much greater detail later in this course. This portion of the lesson should merely scratch the surface of the investigator’s responsibilities in the area of communications

1. Oral Communication

These skills must be practiced on a routine and consistent basis. Communication is a major portion of what an investigator does everyday. Whether it is talking to a client, or interviewing a witness, the investigator must be able to communicate in a clear and concise manner. The investigator’s verbal communications skills can often mean the difference between obtaining all of the information from a witness, or obtaining a confession. Many people pride themselves in their ability to engage in “verbal gymnastics” and will often consider themselves mentally superior to the investigator. The investigator must be careful not to fall victim to a similar shortcoming by speaking in manner that could be perceived as superior to the client and/or witness. Engaging in this type of activity is not acceptable and can severely inhibit the exchange of information.

2. Written Communication

A good investigator must also be able to communicate effectively through the use of his/her writing abilities. This form of communication is needed for note taking and report writing (case documentation). An investigator can never have too many notes, and note taking must be become a constant part of the investigator’s daily activities. Documentation starts with the notebook in the investigator’s pocket. From the time that the investigator arrives on the scene, throughout every aspect of the investigation, notes are a crucial part of his/her job. In order to properly document and later provide information related to the investigation, the investigator must rely heavily on his/her case notes. This may be become painfully obvious when the investigator is required to provide detailed case information months or years following the initial investigation. As time passes, the investigator is naturally prone to forget facts or get confused without the help of meaningful case notes to refresh his/her memory.

• 0 comments »

Responsibilities of the Investigator

It is the responsibility of the investigator to address every step of the investigation in a manner that will lead to the truth. Once the investigator starts a case, he/she is personally responsible for the following:

You need to become thoroughly familiar with the individual and determining what leads are identified and what activities might produce additional leads.

You then need to view all evidence collected in the case and determining what should be submitted to a laboratory for analysis, and exactly what analysis should be performed if necessary.

Next you should determine whether surveillance needs to be conducted, and what type of surveillance to use.

After that you can evaluate the significance of any statements and determining which individuals need to be re-interviewed.

Then you need to determine if you need to collect any additional evidence that may have been overlooked during the preliminary investigation.

Essential Traits of an Effective Investigator

The investigator that consistently solves difficult cases is often said to have luck. While this may be partially true, it is probably only a small portion of what really makes the investigator effective. To be an effective investigator, in addition to being adequately prepared, you must also possess and develop certain essential traits. Some of these traits are as follows:

A. Self-Discipline

Every successful investigator must possess a high degree of self discipline. This self discipline helps guide the investigator’s behavior to ensure that only legally acceptable and ethical methods of investigation are utilized to solve cases. A successful investigator always approaches the case with an alert and fastidious attention to detail and never leaves anything to chance. All steps of the investigation must be carefully calculated and chances never taken that might jeopardize the case.

B. Reasoning Ability

This is based on the investigator’s ability to draw conclusions from evidence discovered in the course of an investigation. The ability to analyze a multitude of facts, and determine how they interrelate, is basic to a successful investigation. Although law enforcement officers practice this trait on a regular basis, this mental challenge is a routine part of being an investigator. Methods of reasoning include two types:

1. Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning is practiced on a daily basis by nearly every investigator. An investigator is tasked with uncovering all the facts involved with a case in an effort to solve the case. In the case of deductive reasoning, a person deduces certain information without the benefit of all the facts.

2. Inductive Reasoning

Through the use of inductive reasoning, the investigator is able to avoid the narrowing of his/her perceptions. It is always best to have all the facts before a conclusion is reached concerning what has taken place, and how and by whom.

Criminal Example:

An investigator might arrive at the scene of a death and observe a gunshot wound to the right temple of the deceased and a weapon still in the person’s right hand. The deceased is lying on the floor of their home, there is no evidence of a forced entry, and preliminary information reveals that the deceased had no enemies. The investigator then uses deductive reasoning to conclude that the deceased committed suicide using the weapon in their hand.

However, had inductive reasoning been used, the investigator would not have been so hasty to draw a conclusion before all the facts were known. In this example, the investigator should have waited and obtained all of the facts before drawing a conclusion. He/she may have learned that the neighborhood in which the deceased lived had been a target of a group of armed “knock and rob” criminals. He/she might also have learned that the bullet that killed the victim was a different caliber than the weapon in his hand. Based on these two additional pieces of evidence, the investigator would most likely have formed a different opinion about the circumstances surrounding this death.

Reasoning ability is important because the investigator will be asked to draw conclusions on subjects. You may have heard that you are not to include opinions in reports. However, investigators are, by the nature of their job, required to develop opinions. This is a weighty responsibility.

Investigators are viewed as experts in many regards. Along with this recognition comes the responsibility for developing a case, while acting in a responsible and ethical manner. Most people have the ability to draw good conclusions (deduce an answer) from a set of facts. This conclusion does not necessarily have to agree with the conclusion other investigators have drawn (there can be an honest disagreement among reasonable people.) The problem arises when an investigator is not willing to realize or admit that his/her bias is influencing their course of action.


Y'all Stay Safe!

• 0 comments »

Below you will see my first post in a series that I have worked on for my free e-course on how to be your own detective. I have gathered the information from several sources and compiled it in an easy to read (I hope) package.

So me of the material in my e-course I have already posted as e-zine articles, but you can rest assured the course is mine.

I hope this series proves useful and helpful to you.

- Be safe!!!

• 1 comments »

Information versus Evidence

Investigations involve the task of gathering and evaluating information. The investigative process must be thought of in terms of gathering information, instead of gathering evidence. Information is essential in order to understand the relationship between the crime and the items of evidence.

Sources of Information

There are two sources of information: people and things.

Information From People

Information is derived from people and may not always be admissible in a court of law. Information consisting of rumors, tips, and hearsay can often place an investigator on the right track to solve a crime, but will probably never appear in testimony. The collection of this information requires the unique skill and ability to elicit facts that can be used to help uncover the truth, whether it comes from the victim, an eyewitness, or a suspect in the case. Each source must be dealt within a unique and skillful manner in order to obtain the information desired. A good investigator must be well-versed in conversational skills and be able to successfully draw out information that may not be readily forthcoming.


Information From Things

Physical evidence can often provide invaluable information to the investigator. However, this information cannot be used if the investigator does not understand and recognize the strict rules for collecting, preserving and presenting this evidence once it is discovered. Physical evidence consists of inanimate objects that cannot lie or flee. The investigator must develop a keen sense of detail when concerning potential items of evidence. Key items of evidence may be difficult to tack down, but monumental in helping prove a case. Familiarity with evidence is essential to becoming a successful investigator. Evidence cannot speak for itself. It needs someone to identify it, interpret it, and then present it for final evaluation.

Relative Weight of Information

Courts throughout the world have consistently given higher relative evidentiary value to information obtained from things, as compared to information obtained from persons. The reason for this is firmly established in the fact that things cannot lie and are not affected by emotion or motive. Direct testimony from persons may be subject to any of these defects.

Unanswered Questions

After obtaining all of the information and evidence related to a case, the investigator may still not be able to answer all of the questions. Quite frequently, cases have some unanswered questions. This is not always the fault of the investigator, but many times a reflection of the various individuals involved in the case, as well as the evidence discovered. Some of the reasons that all of the investigator’s questions may not be answered include:

► Incomplete information or confusion,
► Missing or destroyed evidence due to purposeful or accidental actions,
► The suspect may confess to the “crime”, but leave out pieces of key information in an attempt to downplay his/her premeditation or to lessen the role they played in the “crime”.
► Eyewitnesses to the crime may provide inaccurate information due to personal bias, or confusion.
► Eyewitnesses to the crime may have departed the area before the arrival of the investigator.

Those are some of the basic principles of investigation. Once you master these, you are on your way to becoming a real investigator.

• 0 comments »