I have had a pretty busy week, working PAYING cases, so I have not had much time to blog about this case in the past five days. Not to brag, but last week was somewhere around a $10,000.00 week for me. It is always important to take care of your paying clients first, and then focus on the topic that interest you. I have had to focus on paying clients. Apparently not all Private Investigators have paying clients to focus on; so they can try to play “Commentator” on cases like the one we are discussing here. Tonight I want to talk about how a “mediocre at best” Private Investigator can harm a case like this, and how a good Private Investigator can help a case like this.

I suppose the first place to start is with the approach that should be taken when working any case as a Private Investigator. One of the most important things to remember is that when it comes to how a Private Investigator works a case, the approach in at least one aspect is much like how a Doctor approaches a patient’s care; First Do No Harm! Often times in the Private Investigation business it is just as important to know what NOT to do as it is to know what to do. If you are a Private Investigator, the “Do No Harm Approach” requires one to be honest with theirself. A good Private Investigator’s first question to himself or herself should be: “Am I qualified to handle this case”? Think of it like this, you would not perform heart surgery on a patient if you did not have the necessary skills, training, and credentials to do so; would you? And if all you have done as a Private Investigator is serve subpoenas and conduct some “cheating spouse surveillance”, what makes you think you are qualified to even give any intelligent commentary on a Child Abduction Case, much less participate in such a case? I take exception to how one of my colleagues seems to want to insert himself into this case and act as if he is some kind of authority on the Lisa Irwin Abduction. What he is doing is selfish, harmful, and has the potential to take away valuable media resources from where they need to be. I will first call your attention to a post made by Mr. Ronald Rugen on 10/25/2011 which is pictured below:

Ron Rugen on Lisa Irwin "Defense"

Kris Cantil is a highly experienced Criminal Defense Investigator from Utah, that has spend more time adjusting her make-up in a courthouse bathroom than Mr. Rugen has in a courthouse. She is well qualified to understand the intricacies of a criminal defense case, and to certainly understand what a criminal defense case is. Click on her name and you can see her qualifications. Kris Cantil works for Kane Consulting and her question to Mr.Rugen is important and “dead on”. Folks, the attorneys working for Lisa Irwin’s parents are NOT a “Defense Team” at this point in time, they are simply trying to keep the focus on looking for the person that abducted Lisa Irwin, going on the assertion that the child was in fact abducted. despite what the media wants to title the attorney or attorneys here; there can be no defense without a prosecution and there has not even been an arrest made yet much less a prosecution. The harm in making statements like this is that it gives the public the inaccurate illusion that the parents of Lisa Irwin are the culprits in her disappearance. Now while I am not ready to say that Lisa Irwin’s parents had nothing to do with her disappearance, I am certainly not willing to point the finger at them just yet. The fact is that there just is not enough evidence to make a determination either way at this point in time. Attorney Cyndy Short was right when she said that “this is how people get wrongfully convicted”, these types of presumptuous statements make the public think that there is something that they don’t know but the person making this statement knows that may indicate guilt, which in turn causes public pressure to be put on the Police, which in turn often times impedes their investigation. This can all have the effect of making people rush to judgment in a case where evidence needs to be dispassionately analyzed. These cases have to be worked with a high degree of objectivity, which apparently Mr. Rugen does not have:

Ron Rugen Admits He Has Not Been Objective

it is not hard to see from reading Mr. Rugen’s comment above that by his own admission he has not been very objective in regards to this case. he has “jumped to conclusions”, and implied that Lisa Irwin’s parents had something to do with the disappearance of their child. This is NOT what a good Private Investigator would do. A good Private Investigator would check out everything, including the parents; but he or she would be objective and receptive to reasonable and logical scenarios so as to not easily dismiss something that might be the key to solving this case.

I have personally worked two (2) Child Abduction Cases, and successfully concluded each one within one (1) week. Now, I will admit that both of these cases were non-custodial parental abduction cases; one (1) from Los Angeles, California over seven years ago for an attorney named Shirlee Bliss and one (1) here locally where we recovered the child in Kansas City, MO for the father named Orlando Hayes. These cases are easier than a “Stranger Abduction Case”, none the less they do require objectivity, professionalism, and the ability to keep a “low profile”. My Lead Investigator, Karen Giboney has worked multiple non-custodial parental abductions and “stranger abduction cases”  Someone should as Mr. Rugen how many of these cases he has worked?

The media can be a useful tool in helping to solve cases like this. The media gets the word out so that citizens can be on the look out for the child and so that if there is someone out there that knows something they will know who to call and talk to about it. It is self serving and selfish for a Private Investigator to try to inject himself into a case like this for the sake of trying to get some publicity and attention. Someone should ask Mr. Rugen who hired him to work on this case?

Folks, it is important that you don’t give this mediocre at best Private Investigator the attention he is seeking, and you stay focused on the important media aspects of this case. Follow what the media is reporting about possible sightings. Follow what the media is reporting about person’s of interest. Keep your eyes and ears open for information that may relate to those topics, instead of following an “armchair quarterback” that serves subpoenas for a living and has high aspirations of being some kind of a recognized news commentator on cases that he has no experience in what so ever. If I had experience that Mr. Rugen has in the Private Investigation Business, I’d stay out of the media and keep my opinions to myself for being afraid that those opinions might come back to haunt me later on. PICTURE that, if you will…….

Ricky B. Gurley.

Dean Beers’s Summary

Now, I should remind you that the only sources that have been used to develop these reports has been publicly sources. RMRI, Inc. has not had any contact whatsoever with anyone involved in this case. We have simply culled data from News Sources. The reader can feel free to submit corrections or findings that he or she may have found on the Internet also.

First, we’ll start with Karen Giboney’s commentary report on this case. Karen Giboney is an experienced and seasoned Investigator with over twenty (20) years in Law Enforcement as a Uniformed Police Officer and a Detective with a Major Crimes Task Force. Karen has investigated hundreds if not thousands of major cases such as murder, rape, robbery, child abuse, child molestation, and child abduction cases. Karen has conducted thousands of interviews and had the highest case closure  rate in her department for several years. Below is a picture of Karen Giboney:

Karen reviewed a large amount of data from News Articles and developed what we will call a “commentary report” on the Baby Lisa Irwin Case. She makes it clear that her opinions here are based solely off of News Articles and that the Kansas City Police Department is probably privy to a lot more information than she is. Below is Karen Giboney’s commentary report:

After over 20 years as a police officer and detective I find some very disturbing facts that have been released regarding the case of Lisa Irwin.  Keep in mind that I am not privy to, or claim to have any further knowledge of this case, other than information that has been obtained through media formats.

Recent developments state that a man was seen coming from the wooded area near the home at approx. 2:30 am carrying an unclothed baby. Additionally there is surveillance footage of this event.

My concerns are this, very few actual infant abductions occur, so few actually that it would be considered rare to begin with.  Of those abductions, most are done by women who are suffering the loss of their own child.  Generally once the severe psychological reasons that caused them to abduct a child to begin with start to subside, often they return the child or seek help to return the child within a matter of days.  That particular window is practically closed at this point.

It has been my experience in thousands of interviews, that it is human nature to first deny, then made excuses for failings or lapses of judgment, only partially answer direct questions and then either confess or shut up.  As an experienced professional investigator, the information that has been obtained from the parents, the manner that in which they sidestep and provide “reasons for”, and then stop talking leads me to believe that they know what happened to Lisa.  I still don’t have enough factual information to make the determination that Lisa is dead or alive…Only that her parents do know.

Bradley, Irwin’s mother, claims that she put the child to bed and checked on her approximately 5 hours before she was found to be missing.  Bradley claims that Lisa was wearing purple shorts and a shirt with kittens on it.  Mr. Irwin comes home at 3:30 am, to a house where he claims “to have immediately known that something was wrong, so he checks on all the children.”  The front door is unlocked, though every other night it is locked, the lights are on.  Then the call to police is delayed because the cell phones are missing.  Then Bradley makes comments about drinking, when asked if she killed Lisa she states, “I don’t think alcohol changes a person enough to do that.”

In just that paragraph of information I would like to point out the following: Human nature is routine. If the front door is usually locked, the likelihood that it was unlocked the night that a stranger decided to take the baby is of long-shot odds.  That mom was drunk ( I am using her standard, no one else’s), and the door was unlocked on the night that a stranger decided to take the baby is of even more narrow odds.  The fact the door was unlocked, mom is drunk, and a man abducted the child, after wandering around undetected in the home long enough to locate and take the cell phones is astronomical.  This also does not explain how the dad’s cell phone disappeared, as he most likely had it with him when he went to work. The abductor would have to have still been in the house after he got home to get it.

So now you see, we have some problems.  We have a family making excuses for failings (drunk), lack of normal routine ( door unlocked…dad knows something is wrong), and excuses (call to police is delayed because cell phones are missing).  Then suddenly they don’t want to talk to police and limit access to the house.

Let’s now skip to the man in the woods.  First of all, a man abducting an infant unknown to him is already doubtful.  If
he did, he would be resolute at getting out of the area in an absolute hurry. He most certainly would not take the time to take the baby’s clothes off… and no clothes have been recovered.

While I touch on the clothes, these questions come to mind.  Very few people routinely put their children to bed wearing their regular clothing.  Most of the time they are put into some sort of PJ’s, and with an infant sometimes just a diaper and a shirt.  Most certainly this creates questions that I would want to ask.

Again…I don’t have enough facts to form an opinion as to whether or not Lisa is still alive…but I sure do have more questions than I have reasonable answers for at this point.  Either someone is not telling all they know, or they have answers they don’t want us to know.

The first 24 hours of child abduction are the most crucial, and those have come and gone.  Statistically this case has reached a dismal point.  Based upon the amount of time she has been gone, and the alleged profile of the abductor, Lisa’s odds of coming home are thin.  Again…I point out that there may be a lot more facts to this case that I am unaware of that changes the whole picture, but based upon public information I believe that the parents of this child have a lot more information than what has been provided to police.

Okay, so at this point what we have done is just analyzed the details that have been presented to us in the media. We find some discrepancies in some of these details, which leads us to some questions that Karen outlined in her commentary report. Next we want to timeline this incident with as much detail as we can. So, I have started putting together a timeline, and will be adding more detail to it as I further research this case.

Here is a link to the timeline: Baby Lisa Irwin Timeline  This timeline should open up in a separate browser tab for you.

Since the servers hosting the timeline above are running slow and timing out here is an alternate timeline that has the same information on it as the timeline listed above: Baby Lisa Irwin Alternate Timeline

Now it is important to study the timeline carefully. A visual timeline will make it easier for a person researching a data set to spot patterns, inconsistencies, and time variables. Here is a good example of a discreprency that can be found in the timeline. Initially Deborah Bradley stated that she went to bed at 10:30 PM on October 3, 2011. Approximately two (2) weeks later when Deborah Bradley admitted that she had been drinking heavily the night that Baby Lisa Irwin vanished, Deborah Bradley stated that she had actually “blacked out” or “passed out” approximately four (4) hour earlier. Deborah Bradley also stated that the last time she saw Baby Lisa Irwin was at 6:40 PM on October 3, 2011. Now, if Deborah Bradley passed out at 6:30 PM on October 3, 2011, this would mean that she had started drinking prior to being intoxicated enough to “black out” or “pass out”. I’d put the time that she would have had to start drinking to an hour before 6:30 PM on October 3, 2011, which puts the time Deborah Bradley started drinking at about 5:30 PM on October 3, 2011. Video footage places Deborah Bradley at Festival Foods approximately 3 to 5 miles away at 5:00 PM on October 3, 2011. Try to remember that this is Kansas City, MO., traffic is very heavy after 5:00 PM on a weekday. So, this would mean that Deborah Bradley started heavily consuming alcohol almost as soon as she got home from Festival Foods while Baby Lisa Irwin was in the house with her. But I have a question: I looked at the video footage of Deborah Bradley at Festival Foods and I did not see Baby Lisa with Deborah Bradley in the video footage at Festival Foods; where was Baby Lisa at? Was Jeremy watching her right before he had to go to work?  It certainly does appear here that Deborah Bradley was drinking excessively while her 10 month old child was in the house with her. Now, I am the last person to point the finger at anyone, but this detail does warrant further exploration in my opinion.

This is just a rough framework of what we are able to piece together on this case thus far. Please feel free to look at the timeline and to submit any details to me that I may have missed. Until the next blog post on this subject, think about all that has been put together for you here on this blog.

Take care.

Ricky B. Gurley.

Google News Article About Baby Lisa Irwin

Eyewitnesses In Baby Lisa Irwin Case

Cadaver Dogs Make Hit In Baby Lisa Irwin Case

Now after reading the articles and becoming familiar with this case, one can see that it is a case that has captured a lot of people’s attention. This case is getting quite a bit of publicity and it is certainly considered a high-profile case. This is also a prime case for a good Private Investigator to join in on and work on behalf of the family. This is a good case for a Private Investigator. And we actually have a person that is working this case for the family in what the media has characterized as a Private Investigator. Mr. Bill Stanton is in Kansas City and working this case. Mr. Stanton is from New York, New York, with a background in Law Enforcement and Private Security. While Mr. Stanton was working in the Private Security Sector he did a lot of work for the various News Media Agencies and undoubtedly garnered some contacts in the media that may be very useful in the Baby Lisa Irwin Case. Mr. Stanton seems to be a good fit for a case like this, in which the media can be utilized to help recover Baby Lisa Irwin. So, it sounds like we have a decent person, well suited for this type of work on the case.

But…. Some people just can’t leave the best possible situation alone. And some people don’t like to see others get spotlight that they think they are so richly entitled to… There has been several complaints here in Missouri about Mr. Stanton working this case simply because he is not licensed as a Private Investigator here in Missouri.  One person in particular has been very verbal about this case, Private Investigator Ron Rugen from Kansas City, MO. I personally know Mr. Rugen, and I can tell you that Mr. Rugen is an EXCELLENT Process Server. He can deliver a subpoena to a person tha tis a party to a legal case like nobody’s business! Mr. Rugen has apparently had some problems with Mr. Stanton working this case involving Baby Lisa Irwin, and has been quite vocal about it. Now, Mr. Rugen contends that he is legally obligated to report Mr. Stanton to our Private Investigator Licensing Board here in Missouri if Mr. Stanton does not have a Private Investigator’s License. Mr. Rugen is effectively saying that he has no choice but to report Mr. Stanton because he suspects that Mr. Stanton is practicing as a Private Investigator without a license. Let’s examine this for a minute. First let me give you a frame of reference for the rules and statutes here in Missouri that regulates the Private Investigation Business. Below is a link to the rules and statutes that regulate the Private Investigation Business here in Missouri.:

Missouri PI Board Rules and Statutes

The rules for reporting unlicensed activity fall under 20 CSR 2234-7.010 Code of Conduct. Now lets examine the rules for reporting unlicensed activity:

If you will look on page three (3) of the Code of Conduct you will see this if you read carefully:

(C) Aiding Unlicensed Practice.

1. Private investigators shall neither permit nor suffer any person with whom they are associated to practice the profession without being properly licensed.

2. Private investigators shall promptly report to the board any person who appears to be unlawfully practicing the profession without a license.

A. Private investigators may consult with the person who appears to be unlawfully practicing the profession without a license regarding the circumstances, and if reasonably satisfied that no violation has occurred, choose not to notify the board.

B. Private investigators need not investigate the conduct of the person who appears to be unlawfully practicing the profession without a license in such circumstances. Reporting the conduct to the board discharges the private investigator’s duty under this section.

C. An anonymous complaint to the board does not comply with the provisions of this section.

D. No action will be taken by the board against a private investigator who has made a report pursuant to the provisions of this section unless malice is shown to be the motive for an untruthful report.

I highlit the part of the code for reporting unlicensed activity to the Missouri Board of Private Investigator Examiners. As we can very plainly see there is no hard and fast rule that absolutely requires one to report suspicions of unlicensed activity to the Missouri Board of Private Investigator Examiners. As a matter of fact, there is a specific provision in the rules that allow a Licensed Private Investigator to make an inquiry with the person that he or she believes is practicing without a license in an effort to determine whether there is cause to make a complaint, or if making a complaint would amount to no more than a baseless allegation. So, the statement that one must report all suspicious activity to the Missouri Board of Private Investigator Examiners is not completely accurate. In cases where there is some question as to whether or not a person is operating illegally as a Private Investigator in Missouri by not being licensed, the licensed Private Investigator that is aware of these suspicions has the option to first consult with the person they suspect of conducing unlicensed activity to see if this is in fact really occurring.

Now with regard to Mr. Bill Stanton, there is no doubt that he is not licensed here in the state of Missouri as a Private Investigator. A simple check of the Occupational Licensing database will reveal that Mr. Bill Stanton does not hold a Private Investigator’s license in Missouri. Anyone can check this Occupational Licensing Database, it is available to the public and can be found at this link: Missouri Occupational Licensing Database. So, it is simple to come to the conclusion that Mr. Bill Stanton is not a Missouri Licensed Private Investigator. However, before making a complaint with the Missouri Board of Private Investigator Examiners, what we have to determine is whether or not the activity that Mr. Stanton is conducting can be defined as conducting the business of a Private Investigator without a license. Media reports and media assigned titles do not rise to the level of cause to believe that Mr. Stanton is conducting Private Investigator business without a license. I think that the most appropriate approach to this situation would be to first contact Mr. Stanton and ask what types of his activities he is conducting, in what capacity he is working for the family in, and to go over the rules and statutes with him in order to give him and understanding of where the line is in what activities he can legally conduct and can’t legally conduct.

I must admit that I am a little disappointed in Mr. Rugen’s lack of understanding of our rules governing Private Investigators here in Missouri. I also have to wonder why Mr. Rugen has inserted himself into this case to begin with? Was Mr. Rugen contacted by the family to assist in locating Baby Lisa Irwin? Was Mr. Rugen contacted by Law Enforcement to consult to them with some special skill that he has in trying to locate Baby Lisa Irwin? While Mr. Rugen is an EXCELLENT Process Server; I am not aware of any special skills that he has that would enable him to offer some unique assistance to Law Enforcement in a Missing Child Case. I wonder (and I hope I am wrong), but I wonder if Mr. Rugen is just not trying to use this case to get himself some media attention? I really hope that this is not  the case because I think that it would take a pretty selfish person to put their “need” for attention before  that of a baby child’s need for as much media focus as possible to try to bring her safely home. I took the time to choose one of the better and most appropriate pictures I have of Mr. Rugen for this blog, which accurately portrays him.

Ron Rugen From Rugen Team Website

I will follow up with a case analysis on this case from a member of my staff that has over 22 years of Law Enforcement Experience with 12 of those years being a Detective with a Regional Major Case Squad, tomorrow night. I think the public needs a close look at what is happening with this case, and I’d like to try to help focus the public on trying to find Baby Lisa Irwin.

As always, thank you for your time. Stay tuned!

Ricky B. Gurley.

Matthew Allen is one Private Investigator that RMRI, Inc. is happy to be affiliated with, proud to sub-contract work to, and I am honored to call a friend. Matt has met all of the requirements that RMRI, Inc. has to receive referrals from RMRI, Inc. and to bring on in cases where his expertise is needed. Matt specializes in high-risk security and intelligence operations, he has worked around the world conducting these types of operations. Matt is competent, effective, and a total professional; with an extraordinary work ethic. Below are some pictures of Matt while he was in another country on an operation. His face has been blurred out due to the nature of his work:

RMRI, Inc. has enjoyed a professional working relationship with Matt for almost four years now and has never received anything other than a stellar work product from Matt every time. Matt has always been a part of making RMRI, Inc. “shine” on the cases that we have worked jointly together with Matt.

Matthew Allen is based out of Saint Louis, Missouri and owns and operates Intelligence Services, LLC. If you are looking for a competent Private Investigator or Security Specialist in Saint Louis, MO.; you could do no better than Matthew Allen. RMRI, Inc. will continue to foster a professional relationship with this very valuable resource. This is the type of professional that RMRI, Inc. works with and the level of professionalism and competence that Matt Allen provides is the level of professionalism and competence that RMRI, Inc. expects.

I’d highly recommend Matthew Allen to any person seeking a competent Private Investigator in the Saint Louis area and to anyone seeking a skilled Security Expert. Below are Matt’s contact details:

Telephone: (314) 517-6699

Website: http://www.intelservice.net/

Email: info@intelservice.net

I can assure you that RMRI, Inc. has provided you with a very valuable resource in handling your investigative and security needs with this article.

Special Process Server Appointment

The term “Process Service” or “Service of Process” just means the service of legal papers to witnesses for court proceedings. Typically this means serving subpoenas or summonses that give a person notice that they are to appear in court for some type of a legal proceeding. Now you are probably envisioning scenes from “Pineapple Express”; right? Well in reality serving legal papers in nothing like what you may have seen on “Pineapple Express”.

Serving legal papers in real life requires persistence, professionalism, patience, and tolerance while at the same time a  strong desire to accomplish the task at hand; to be successful in this line of work one has to be very “mission oriented”. In reality a Process Server is just a “mailman” or sorts. While it may be true that we are just delivering papers it is also true that typically we are delivering papers that the recipients do not want. Due to the fact that we are often times delivering papers that are not wanted by the recipient we must understand that we are going to encounter some “resistance” to the delivery of these legal papers. So, it is important to be courteous, polite, patient, and even tolerant but at the same time firm, persistent, and even sometimes “coercive” in getting these legal papers served.

At RMRI, Inc. we take the job of serving legal process very seriously. We look at the entire process of serving legal papers as a necessary and vital component of the Justice System. The objective in criminal and civil cases is to find the truth so that the trier of fact can make often times life altering decisions based on the facts of the case. A subpoena is a demand for a citizen to show up and assist the court in finding the truth in a case through their testimony or through the production of documents that the witness may have that might allow the court to more intelligently discern the facts of the case. These witnesses that are subpoenaed to testify in court are an important part of the process of helping the court to make a ruling based on the facts of the case they are testifying in or producing documents for. It is completely understandable that having to show up for court and testify as a witness can be inconvenient; but this is a necessary inconvenience. Imagine if you will, that you are a witness in a case where a man is facing life in prison and you had information that could prove this man’s innocence and you evaded service and did not show up in court and an innocent man was convicted of a crime he did not commit? Imagine the opposite; that you had information that could prove that a person is actually committing a horrendous crime and you evaded service and did not show up for court and you caused a predator to be released into society to victimize more people? Now we can begin to see why the Process Server’s job is important and on that he or she should take seriously.

At RMRI, Inc. we have certain rules that we abide by when we serve legal papers. First, we always maintain a professional appearance, we are representing the client we work for and to a degree the courts when we serve legal papers; after all the court entrusted us as a competent persons to serve these legal papers. Second we are polite and courteous when we serve legal papers, we try to be quick in respect of the person’s time we are serving and we also try to answer any questions the person may have when we are serving them. Third, we are effective in the service of process; this means that sometimes it is necessary to be firm and to use unorthodox methods to get the papers we are assigned to serve, served. This does not mean that we are not courteous and polite; but it does mean that we expect the people that we are serving to also respect our time and to give us just some basic human dignity and respect when we are trying to serve them. RMRI, Inc. will always try to work around the witnesses schedule and make service as convenient as possible for the person being served. On average it takes RMRI, Inc. approximately ten (10) seconds to serve a subpoena; I don’t think that is too much to ask of anyone.

I hope this gave the reader a little insight into what a Process Server does, and why their job is an important job.

Lawyers Weekly Article with Rick Gurley 1

Lawyers Weekly Article with Rick Gurley 2

First of all I should state that I know some of the members of our Local Internet Crimes Task Force, and the ones that I know are good and honest people. I do trust the members of our local Internet Crimes Task Force and I don’t think they would ever do anything intentional that might send an innocent person to prison. I should caution anyone reading this that attempting to gain access to the hard drive of the investigating agency’s computer should not be the first course of action by the defense, a Digital Forensic’s Expert should first read the reports written by the Investigating Officer’s to try to determine if there is any cause to try to gain access to the investigating agency’s hard drive; often times there is no cause to do so. I should also state that I am not an attorney but I think it is also fair to state that most of the attorneys mentioned in this article are not Digital Forensics Experts either; and certainly not Merilee Crockett as evidenced by some of her statements in this article.  The first quote from Merilee Crockett that I noticed was this:

A lot of people believe that once something is on a hard drive it is there forever. That’s a myth. There are no layers. It’s either there or it is not.

Well in essence that is true, but it is also over-simplistic. What is important to remember here in these types of cases is that we are dealing with Digital Evidence, and there is nothing simple about Digital Evidence. When someone tries to over-simplify how data on a computer is stored, over-written, or deleted there are a lot of key issues that get lost in the translation from complex to simple. First of all let me explain data deletion. When a file is “deleted” as the layman may believe, the file is not actually deleted initially, instead it is simply no longer linked to a “file tree” on the computer. The file is still on the computer for the time being until another file is saved and the space where that old file is at is reallocated for the new file, and then the old file gets overwritten. So often Digital Forensics Experts will say something like this to a layman as an example:

Nothing is ever deleted from a computer, it is overwritten. Think of the data on a computer as layers of information, and think of computer forensic software as a tool that can lift these layers of data to expose what you thought was once “deleted”.

Now one must understand that this quote is usually being made from a Digital Forensics Expert trying to explain data storage and deletion to a layman. This too is also an over-simplification of how data is stored, overwritten, and deleted. The difference is that what Merilee Crockett is saying here is for the purpose of trying to give an excuse as to why the defense should be hampered in discovery by limiting what can be key and important information that the defense needs, while all the Digital Forensics Expert is trying to do is give a layman an idea of what to expect in a Computer Forensic Examination. What may be the most accurate way to explain what happens is through this illustration listed below that was provided to me by a well known, and world renowned Digital Forensics Examiners and close associate of mine; Brian Ingram

Hard Drive Data Illustration by Brian Ingram

How many computer novices and laymen do you think would completely understand that illustration above? There is one thing that is clear, if there is a file that occupies a portion of a cluster on a hard drive, then there is room for data from another file on the portion of that cluster that is not occupied, that portion of the cluster that is not occupied is called “File Slack“; and it is not only possible but also likely that a completely different file may occupy this same cluster in the unused portion of this cluster or the “File Slack”. This is a completely accurate illustration of the example that Digital Experts are trying to give laymen when they explain how data is overwritten and they use an example involving “layers of data”. And if you look at the example carefully, and read closely you will see that Merilee Crockett did actually simplify this issue to the point that some key issues on how data is recovered from a hard drive are lost in her “translation” of how data is stored, over-written, and deleted from a hard drive.

There is a reason that I gave the example of how an over-simplified interpretation of an issue such as what we are addressing here can be harmful. Prosecutors typically want to try to limit as much as they can with regard to discovery in a criminal case; but I should also say that there are a few Prosecutors that also believe in “Open Discovery” and Full Disclosure. There is nothing wrong with that, the defense also does the same thing. This is a good example of attorneys doing their jobs. But when a Prosecutor tries to limit evidence that can be exculpatory to the defendant; they start to breach a more sinister area resulting in a denial of justice to the defendant. As any good attorney knows this at the very least may border on what is known as a “Brady Violation”.

One of the key points that the prosecution tries to make when arguing against the defense looking at the hard drive from the Law Enforcement Agency that conducted the forensic examination on a defendant’s hard drive is that the hard drive from the Law Enforcement Agency’s computer will contain sensitive case information from other cases.  If you read what Merilee Crockett has to say in this article, she proposes the same argument:

The hard drive contains chats from ongoing investigations. It has names of potential suspects never charged with crimes. It has the photos and names of underage personas used by undercover investigators, which a disgruntled defendant could easily post online. Defense attorneys can’t prevent that from happening. They have an ethical obligation to give the client everything they can

That sounds like a good argument; doesn’t it? I’d say that if I did not know what I know about Digital Forensics, encryption, and how to safely store data I’d agree with that as a good reason NOT to have to hand over the hard drive from the Law Enforcement Agency’s computer. But the problem with this argument is that the whole issue of exposing such sensitive case information to Defense Investigators is that there are a number of remedies that can be applied here. A digital image can be transferred to a hard drive and check-summed to show that it is a true bit image of the original hard drive from the defendant and all of the notes and other such pertinent information that is gathered in the course of the investigation of the specific case in question can also be transferred to that same hard drive; thereby consolidating the case information generated from the Law Enforcement investigation onto one hard drive for the Defense Investigator and keeping all of the other non-pertinent sensitive case information protected. Encryption could also be used on the hard drive belonging to the Law Enforcement Agency to limit what is viewed to only the pertinent data that applies to the case at hand. Under the Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act the Defense Investigator has to view the evidence at the Law Enforcement Agency’s facility, so a Law Enforcement Officer can easily sit down and decrypt the section or sections of the hard drive that needs to be examined by the Defense Investigator, thereby protecting all of the non-pertinent sensitive case information on the hard drive in question. The court can also impose orders that limit what the Defense Investigator can discuss with the Defense Attorney and their client to only case related material. There should also be multiple computers that are being used by the Law Enforcement Agency tasked with these types of investigations that have specific purposes; for example the computer that is being used to image and analyze the defendant’s hard drive should be a stand alone computer, not attached to the Internet in any way, that has all wireless adapters turned off this way there is a minimal chance of any evidence corruption issues. The computer that is used to chat with potential offenders should also have that one specific purpose; this way with the use of encryption all chat logs for a specific case can be freely examined by the defense in these types of cases. Are some of these methods labor intensive? Sure, but we are discussing a criminal case in which there is a possibility that a person can be wrongly accused, sent to prison, put on a sex offender registry for the rest of their life, and have their entire life negatively impacted as a result; isn’t doing everything we can to eliminate that possibility worth a little more work? There are ways around this issue; IF the concern here is a level playing field for the defense?

There are always questions in these cases when it comes to best practices in the forensic analysis of the defendant’s computer, evidence preservation and storage, and evidence spoliation issues. Often times these issues are insignificant enough that the chance of them presenting a problem in a case are so unlikely that they don’t warrant any consideration. I am not saying that I don’t trust that Law Enforcement is dong the best they can to make sure that their evidence is correct, but I am saying that it is real easy to make a mistake in cases that involve digital evidence. However when these questions rise to a level of concern to cause a realistic possibility that they could impede a defendant’s right to a fair trial; if the Defense’s expert can clearly articulate the reason for that concern the court should weigh the defendant’s right to a fair trial against the possibility that the investigating agency may have to expose some of it’s sensitive data to the Defense team. In my personal opinion; if you are looking at sending a man to prison for ten (10) years, then his right to a fair trial trumps a risk of exposure of sensitive data from the investigating agency’s computer.

There are a number of questions that the Defense Investigator should be trying to answer when looking over the discovery material from the prosecution.

(1) Was the computer that was used to conduct the Digital Forensic Examination attached to the Internet?

(2) What digital forensic software was used to conduct the examination with?

(3) Was there a virus scanner used by the investigating agency to see if the defendant’s hard drive may have a virus, Trojan, or some other type of malware that could have caused any content to be downloaded to the defendant’s computer without the defendant’s knowledge? If so, what virus scanner was used, what version, was it updated, and are there any known vulnerabilities associated with the virus scanner?

(4) Are there any anti-forensic tools on the investigating agency’s computer? If there are; why are they there?

These are only a small sampling of the questions that the Defense Investigator should be asking and trying to answer by reading the discovery material. If enough of these questions are answered in such a way that they give the Defense Investigator clear concerns that may need to be further examined, then it may be necessary to ask for the hard drive from the investigating agency’s computer. The Defense Investigator should be able clearly articulate these concerns to the court and explain the impact that they may have on the evidence. If the court finds that the Defense Investigator gave a reasonable accounting to the court of his or her concerns, and the court is convinced that these concerns are realistic; then perhaps it is not such a bad thing that the Defense Investigator is given what he or she needs to further explore these concerns instead of having to be forced to trust a detective that may not even know if he or she made a mistake in how they gathered and handled the case evidence?

I have noted that Merilee Crockett has compared handing over the hard drive from the investigating agency’s computer in cases that involve digital evidence to handing over a breathalyzer machine. One difference to note in these two examples is that with regard to digital evidence, usually the defense gets a copy of a detailed report from the investigating agency that outlines their computer examination in fair detail. With breathalyzer tests, there is less detail, and less tools and procedures for the Law Enforcement Officer to detail in his or her report, thus short of a fishing expedition there usually is not enough information to articulate a need to examine the breathalyzer machine source code. In People v. Cialino, 831 N.Y.S.2nd 680, 681 (Crim. Ct. 2007) the court did not deny access to the breathalyzer source code because it was not significant to the case; the court denied access to the breathalyzer because the defense could not clearly articulate why access to the breathalyzer source code was significant to the case; this can be seen in the language the court used when the court first called the defendant’s request a “fishing expedition” but then went on to say “it is incumbent on the defendant to show that a software change has altered the reliability and accuracy of the machine” and the court said that the defendant had not provided a reasonable basis that changes in the software of the Intoxilyzer 5000 had caused it to become unreliable. So the court left the door open for the examination of the source code of the breathalyzer machine in question, but it required a clear articulation as to why it would be reasonable for the defense should be permitted to examine the source code. In cases involving digital evidence that is gathered from imaging a hard drive, the investigative agency’s digital forensic analysis report will usually allow the Defense Investigator more information on the software used, processes used, and evidence interpretations made by the Detective to form any questions that might be pertinent to the case and research these questions to see if there may be good cause and NOT just a “fishing expedition” to ask for the hard drive from the investigating agency’s computer.

In summary; I am not saying that in every case the defense should have access to the investigating agency’s computer hard drive. What I am saying is that the courts should try to be open to seriously considering any request by the defense to examine the investigating agency’s hard drive if the defense can clearly articulate a need to do so. In my mind the whole issue comes down to a balancing act; the court should balance the defendant’s right to a fair trial against the need for Law Enforcement to keep sensitive case information confidential; once a clear articulation is made by the defense that demonstrates that there are reasonable issues that need to be explored by the defense in order to defend the defendant against any evidence corruption issues that may negatively impact the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Ricky B. Gurley

I’d call this a heck of a win for Jose Baez and a humiliating loss for the prosecution.

Consider that Jose Baez was the “underdog” with no “death penalty case” experience prior to this case. Further consider that Jeff Ashton is a renowned Prosecutor with several murder trials under his belt. If you watched the media during the trial, almost every one of the commentators that are attorneys and investigators were putting Jose Baez under the microscope for what they all perceived as mistakes and praising Jeff Ashton for every little thing he did, with the exception of Sunny Hostin. Looking at these points you can only conclude that Jose Baez did a heck of a job on this case in the face of some overwhelming odds.

I have maintained from the beginning that Jose Baez was doing a really good job as the Defense Attorney on this case, and posted as much on another group before the verdict.

After having watched what I could of this case, I do not believe that Casey killed her daughter. I think that her daughter died as a result of an accident in the swimming pool and drowned. I think that Casey panicked and did not call the police. I think that Casey Anthony DID put the child’s body in the car. I think that Casey Anthony was trying to figure out how to dispose of the body without being caught. I think that the body did start to decompose while in the car. I think that Casey Anthony called her mother to help her figure out what to do with the body. I think her mother told her husband, George Anthony. I think George Anthony then stepped in and disposed of the body for his wife, who would have been grieving at that time and worried that she would lose a granddaughter and daughter if they contacted the Police. And I believe George Anthony disposed of the body in the same manner that he disposed of the bodies of the family pets when they died. Most of all, in my mind I think Jose Baez painted a real clear picture that this or something very similar occurred in this case. And none of this adds up to murder.

But that is just my opinion, it does not mean much.

Kudos to Jose Baez for a heck of a job and a heck of a win!

Ricky Gurley.

Well an associate of mine asked me to post this on his blog, and I did. This post has not made it to his blog yet, but I feel that it may; eventually. Now everyone that know me, knows how I am. I have to take my “shots”. Just gotta do it, so let me get those “shots” out of the way, and then we can move on to a more careful analysis of the Casey Anthony Trial.

Jeff Ashton will now be prosecuting bad checks and traffic tickets for the State of Florida; so I guess he figures it is time to retire. Linda Drane Burdick will be arranging plea bargains with defense attorneys for prostitutes and pot smokers; but with the help of some short skirts and low-cut blouses she may be able to “work” her way back up to prosecuting murder cases sometime in the next five years. And the other Prosecutor? Well he was smart enough to minimize his participation in this trial enough that I can’t even recall his name. He may have very well avoided the “career bullet” by minimizing his exposure (mind you that the only way Linda Drane Burdick is going to climb the corporate ladder so to speak, will be by “MAXIMIZING her exposure”). All of the “legal expert commentators” will be wiping egg off of their faces for the next month; and “Nasty Disgrace” will still have a few more runs at Casey Anthony and Jose Baez; despite the egg on her face. But we should all be thankful that “Nasty Disgrace” does have egg covering her face, if only for a little while. And all Mike Brooks has to do is slide the egg upwards to his bald head and it should slide right off; so he will be spewing more of his “judgmental non-sense” next week! But their is an upside;  Jose Baez gets to go home with the “gold ring”, and he has earned it. And I hope “Nasty Disgrace” and Mike Brooks get a good, long look at him as he is tilting his champagne glass to the sky! The ONLY News Commentator that demonstrated some real experience, high intelligence, and was completely unbiased on this case was Sunny Hostin. She called it right all of the way down the line!

Now onto the more serious side of this case.  Onto a more serious analysis of this case. When one considers the overwhelming odds that Jose Baez faced, the limited funds that he had to work with ($90,000.00 over 3 years), versus the unlimited funds and resources of the Florida State Attorney’s Office; all we can conclude is that Jose Baez is simply a brilliant and “top shelf” Defense Attorney! Jose Baez went into this case with no death penalty case experience, with the media putting his every move under the microscope and looking for errors while the media found every excuse in the world to praise Jeff Ashton and Linda Drane Burdick. And Jose Baez still overcame those overwhelming odds and produced what can only be defined as a WIN!  Was he aggressive? HELL YEAH! Did he attack the Prosecution’s case with a vicious brutality? HELL YEAH! Did he thoroughly cross-examine and break down the Prosecution’s witnesses? HELL YEAH! All of which is to say that he vigorously defended his client as any good Defense Attorney should do. Jose Baez did his job and did it well. Jose Baez did what he is legally obligated to do, and nobody can fault him for that!

The Casey Anthony Prosecution Team in their "What Do We Do Now?" Pose

Anytime a Defense Attorney has a client facing the death penalty and walks out of the courtroom with his client only being convicted of four misdemeanors; that is a WIN! No Defense Attorney gets a verdict like this in a case like this one on sheer luck. No sir, the Defense Attorney has to be skilled to do what Jose Baez did in this case!

The Prosecution’s case was damned to any intelligent Jury to begin with. The Prosecution used what I jokingly refer to as “The Doo Doo Head Strategy”. They did not have any forensic evidence whatsoever, and the Florida State Attorney General admitted this after the trial was over when he stated that they had “no smoking gun” and “a Dried Bones Case”. The Prosecution knew that they had no forensic evidence, so they relied on character assassination of the defendant in hopes that they could get the Jury to be emotional due to the loss of little Caylee Anthony, and  want to blindly convict Casey Anthony by making her out to be a terrible person. To an intelligent Jury the Prosecution would have had as much effect by standing up and saying “Casey Anthony is a Doo Doo Head”! The “forensic evidence” that the Prosecution presented was simply “babble”, disguised as smoke and mirrors that amounted to nothing once an intelligent person took a close look at it. And we had twelve intelligent people looking at it and one brilliant Defense Attorney exposing it for what it is to them!

Jose Baez getting ready to ask Jeff Ashton "What Kind Of Crap Are All Of You Going To Try To Pull Now"?

Nobody, not even Jose Baez ever stated that Casey Anthony was “salt of the earth”. As a matter of fact Jose Baez let it be known right up front that Casey Anthony had told a lot of lies, and was a dysfunctional part of a dysfunctional family. Pretty much everyone, even the defense acknowledged that Casey could fairly be considered an unsavory person. But the Prosecution wanted to spend 30 days hammering this point home. The sad fact is that the prosecution could not do much else, because this is all they had! And the one fact that the Jury kept in focus was that a liar, even a promiscuous liar, even more a promiscuous liar that will suggestively pose for the camera for a little bit of recognition, no matter how much we may not like someone like this, is still not a “murderer make”!

Does This Equal Murderer? REALLY?

In summary; one can never say what verdict a Jury will reach. The fact is that it is impossible to predict what verdict the Jury will come back with. But here, in this case; the jury got it right. They Jury did not allow the prosecution to “play on their emotions”. The Jury stuck with the facts and the evidence; or rather in this case the LACK of evidence. The Jury stayed the course; and we should all be thankful that they did.

I will leave you with this thought. Juries are called upon to perform an incredible task. The fate of another human being is held in their hands. Along with the Jury’s verdict comes a message. The message often times is that we as a society will not tolerate the victimization of our fellow man. But sometimes this message is sent to the prosecution or the state instead of the defendant; and in this case that is exactly what happened!

Thank you all for your readership.

Ricky B. Gurley

Ricky Gurley Hard At Work

Before I explain that one defining moment that has kept me in the Private Investigation business let me also say that sometimes I get frustrated in this business. Sometimes I get annoyed and irritated in this business. I know that this business has made me more of a callous person that I was before I started doing Private Investigations. I know that I am not a very trusting person now because of some of the things that I have seen and encountered in the Private Investigation business. I fully understand that no business is perfect but yet I do expect  competency and integrity from my fellow Private Investigators; and not just as “buzz words” on a webpage but as standards that are practiced in such a way to show that my fellow Private Investigators know what they mean and understand how important they are. I also know that I have become a very “high-strung” person from years of seeing things that I just don’t believe to be fair to other people. There is no doubt that I have become quite outspoken about many of these things; but I am not so sure that this is a bad thing because I think that it does show that I still have a sense of fairness, and compassion for people who are treated unfairly.

Despite all the issues that I have just listed in the past two paragraphs that I seem to grapple with constantly; I still love this profession. I still know that one can make some significant differences in this profession. I still believe that the people in this profession can truly make a difference in people’s lives for the better. And that one defining moment that I mentioned in the first paragraph made me certain of these statements.

In 2004 I received a call from an attorney in Los Angeles, California. This case is 7 years old, so I can write about it now. She had a client whose daughter had been “abducted”. Now this incident was not your traditional abduction where a stranger abducts a person; this was what is known as a parental abduction. Simply put a parental abduction usually occurs when a non-custodial parent that has visitation rights with their child simply picks the child up for visitation and refuses to return the child to the custodial parent. The attorney told me that she had some information that the non-custodial parent was living in Columbia, MO. and she wanted me to see if I could find the non-custodial parent and gather evidence that her client’s daughter was with the non-custodial parent. I was sure that I could help and I told the attorney so. So the attorney had her client call me. Enter Francisco Ochoa, the custodial parent whose daughter was not returned to him by the non-custodial parent after the court ordered visitation. After taking copious notes over the phone with Mr. Ochoa and receiving a retainer from Mr. Ochoa I started my investigation. I did all the investigative work I could from the computer before going in the field as any good Private Investigator would. After I had all the information I could gather from database searches, court records research, running background information on the non-custodial parent, and making phone calls to various people who might be able to give me some leads to follow-up on I went out in the field with 2 other Private Investigators that were licensed under my company. Within seventy-two hours we had found the non-custodial parent’s location, verified the daughter was there, and took several pictures of the daughter at the location. I sent all of this information back to the attorney with the pictures and kept surveillance on the location while the attorney petitioned the court for an emergency custody order showing that Francisco Ochoa was the custodial parent and that the daughter was with the non-custodial parent after the visitation time had elapsed. Within one week Mr. Ochoa was on his way from Los Angeles, California to Columbia, Missouri with that emergency custody order to pick his daughter up. When Mr. Ochoa arrived he and I went to the Columbia Police Department with his emergency custodial order and my evidence of his daughter’s whereabouts and the Columbia Police Department wasted no time at all in getting several Officers out to the address that I had under surveillance to recover Mr. Ochoa’s daughter for him while he waited at the Columbia Police Department. I also had to go out to the address to serve the mother with some paperwork from the court in Los Angeles, California. I remember returning to the Columbia Police Department at about the same time that the Police Officers did with Mr. Ochoa’s daughter. I also remember when Mr. Ochoa’s daughter came up to him that he gave her a big hug and just simply broke down in tears, crying tears of joy that he was reunited with his daughter. I remember this moment in time because I also remember that when I saw this big man crying while hugging his daughter it was all I could do to stop myself from shedding a few tears too. The emotions were simply overwhelming. I can’t begin to describe how emotional that moment was but I can tell you this; I’ll remember it forever. And I thought to myself that there could be no other sense of accomplishment and feeling that I had made a significantly positive impact in these people’s lives greater than what I was experiencing right then and there. I could not think of any other job in the world that I could have that would have allowed me to experience that one moment in time. From that day forward I have not wanted to do anything else other than what I am doing now. If I had to trade in all the money that I made on that case just to experience that one moment in time I’d do it without even as much as a second thought.

This is why I do what I do. These brief moments in time when I know that I made a difference in someone’s life. These moments don’t happen often; they are quite rare. But it only takes one of these defining moments to make all the sacrifice and hard work, all of the frustration and irritation worth being in this profession.

I hope that every Private Investigator in this profession has at least one of those defning moments in the course of their time in this profession.

RIcky B. Gurley

So in my quest for an updated, robust, and comprehensive tool for conducting various Internet Investigations such as Internet Profiling, Email Tracing, Security Scanning and other services that my company offers to select clients; I was surprised to find a tool matching my description of current, robust, and comprehensive being offered for FREE! Of course I would not have known how useful and comprehensive this tool would turn out to be until I tested it. So I downloaded the tool and started putting it through various tests to see how well it performed. I was surprised at the sheer volume of tools that could be found inside of this piece of software. I was even more surprised when I saw how well all the tools in this piece of software worked.

Net Tools 5.0 turned out to be one of the best, most versatile, comprehensive, and diverse pieces of software that I have used in a long time. Net Tools 5.0 has far too many tools to list here; but it really does live up to the name “multipurpose”!

Below is a screenshot of just a few of the tools that come with Net Tools 5.o:

Net Tools 5.0 has many applications that are useful for anything from Internet Profiling, Email Tracing,  Internet Searching (Try The “Power Of Google” Tool For Deep Web Searches for Confidential and Classified Documents), to even analysing your own computer for problems.

If you are a Private Investigator and a portion of your work is Computer or Internet Based, this is one tool that I HIGHLY recommend!

But now it is time to talk about something very serious. I have an associate in Phoenix, AZ. who is a Licensed Private Investigator, that has just recently started her business up again. She used to be a Private Investigator and then left the business to spend more time with her family. Her husband became very ill and she went back into Private Investigation work to help support her family, she focused her work areas on work she could do from home so she could take care of her husband too. She is a nice lady, that has made a lot of sacrifices and has worked hard to try to be a good wife, a good business lady, and a good person. Her name is: Dondi (Dee) Lucia Frigerio-Holmes.

Dee has found herself in a terrible situation that any of us could find ourselves in, and I am here to ask you to consider helping her with whatever you can afford to offer. I have an excerpt from Dee that I would like to share with you all, so you can see the situation she is in here:

“My husband passed away Thursday evening. He has been ill for some time and his care had come to consume my days. I had a regular job that I lost a couple of years ago due to the economy going bust and figured I would start another PI agency so I could be home and take care of my husband and still make a salary. Unfortunately my PI biz has not taken off as quickly as I had hoped and my husband’s health declined rapidly. We were barely making ends meet and have had to sell off personal things to make ends meet most months. My husband had gained a great deal of weight so his funeral expenses are higher, we have no insurance (he was a vet so VA insured, his illness not service related so they will not pay for funeral) and I have no money for his cremation.”

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a terrible position for this lady to be in. This lady has to get her husband’s burial needs attended to by tomorrow; Monday 03/07/2011. I could not help but feel terrible for this lady because she is a colleague but most of all because she is a decent human being that just wants to try to lay her husband to rest and try to move on with her life. I’d like to ask for your assistance in helping this lady in any way you can. I’d like to list her contact details and an email to her PayPal account, so if you can find it in your heart to help her to lay her husband to rest, you will be able to do so. Below are Dee’s contact details:

Dondi (Dee) Lucia Frigerio-Holmes

The Looking Glass, LLC

Phoenix, AZ 85060

AZ License #1597140 & 1597141

phone:623/252-2223 fax: 602/680-7850

www.thelookingglassinvestigations.com

Member of Investigators of America

Here is an email address for Dee that you can send a donation to her with through PayPal: thelookingglass2@cox.net

I hope that the people reading this can help this lady to lay her husband to rest in a dignified manner. With all of the hatred and malice occurring at our Military Veteran’s Funerals; wouldn’t it be nice to know that you did something to help just one of them and his family out in their time of need?

Thank you all for your time and for your readership.

Take care.

Last night I had the pleasure of working with two Private Investigators that are fine examples of what I am referring to in this article. I worked with two Private Investigators that I would say saved a man’s life because they are EFFECTIVE at what they do.

Enter Ana-Maria Ionita and Bernardo Yepes of Grey Ghost Investigation and Security Services. Yesterday Ana-Maria received a call from a family overseas that had a relative here in the USA that had become depressed due to some relationship problems he was having. The family did not know  exactly where their relative was, but did have a general area to start looking in. Ana-Maria contacted me to see if I could help her pinpoint the subject, and we did obtain some new information as to the subject’s whereabouts; but we still did not have a precise location on the subject. Ana-Maria and Bernardo got in their car at 8:00 pm last night and drove from Fort Lauderdale, FL. to Miami Beach, FL. and started looking for the subject. They located the subject and kept surveillance on the subject until 6:00 am this morning. Then they made sure he was safe and then followed up this afternoon by checking on him again. They may have very well saved this man’s life by taking the action that they did, and they certainly saved his family a lot of worry and stress. They were EFFECTIVE! Ana-Maria and Bernardo put their convenience on hold on a Friday Night and instead of resting after a long week of work, they went right back out in consideration of another person’s safety and wellbeing. I can’t think of any better people than that. It was a pleasure to work with them, and they are certainly the Private Investigators to go to in the Fort Lauderdale area of Florida if you are in need of a Private Investigator in that area.

Ana-Maria and Bernadro demonstrate what it means to be EFFECTIVE at this job. They are both very ethical people, and they worry about the direction that our profession is heading in. Ana-Maria is a former Florida State Probation Officer and now a hard working Florida Licensed Private Investigator. But her and Bernardo have more than ethics and integrity. They have the one winning quality that it takes to succeed in this business. They have what it takes to get the job done! They are EFFECTIVE at what they do!

You can have all of the ethics in the world, and you can have all of the integrity in the world. You can be thought of as simply beyond reproach by everyone in the world. But if you are not EFFECTIVE at what you do, you are a FAILURE at what you do!

There are times when you just don’t want to come into an office and ask questions but you need some advice that you believe is important to have. At the same time if you know anything about business then you know that “Time Is Money”.  So you may find yourself confronted with a situation where you might not get the best advice you can get because the person you are seeking the advice from does not have the time to thoroughly advise you due to having to work for paying clients. Well now, with just a phone call you can become a “Paying Client” that does not have to worry about taking up too much of someone’s time that is being paid to attend to others.

RMRI, Inc. now offers Investigative Consultations right over the phone. We can help you with a wide variety of issues. If you are a consumer, we can help you decide if you need a Private Investigator or if you might not need to spend your hard-earned money on hiring one. If it turns out that you do not need a P.I. we can provide “tips” and resources that should greatly assist you in handling whatever issues you have called us about. if you have already hired a Private Investigator or you have one in mind, we can give you the “inside scoop” on that Private Investigator and help you determine if he or she is the right fit for your needs. We can do all of this for a fraction of what we would charge if you otherwise engaged us.

If you are a new Private Investigator or are wanting to become a Private Investigator and start your own business, we can help you with learning about licensing laws, becoming legal, gathering free or inexpensive resources to start your business and/or run your business economically, give you advertising tips, give you document templates for protecting your business and making sure that you get paid, provide Internet links to you that will help you to saves thousands of dollars each year, and much, much more.

Please feel free to call on us if you feel like we can be of assistance. We are standing by ready to take your calls now.

Our Rate Is $1.50/Minute Via Telephone.

Ricky B. Gurley.

Of course we all know that if a person has a family and they are the victim of an overzealous Prosecutor that causes them to be wrongfully imprisoned; there are more victims than just the defendant in a case like this. That defendant’s family also becomes victimized by this overzealous Prosecutor. In the David Riley case, there is his wife and three (3) children that are the victims of Prosecutor Brent Nelson’s underhanded tactics.

Prior to this incident that occurred at the Ultra-Mart in Columbia, MO. between David Riley and the Columbia Police Department; David Riley and his wife Lucaya Riley owned and operated a successful business that allowed them to make a legitimate and honest living. David and Lucaya Riley owned AC Auto Sales; they sold used cars and classic cars. Below is a picture of the shop in Columbia, MO. that they used to own:

David and Lucaya Riley's Auto Shop 1

David and Lucaya Riley's Auto Shop 2

David and Lucaya Riley earned a nice living that allowed them to live an upper middle class lifestyle. David Riley was able to provide for his family though his hard work at the shop that he and Lucaya owned. David Riley was able to provide well for his wife and children and he was a good father to his children and husband to his wife. Below is a picture of David Riley’s home prior to him being incarcerated in the Missouri Department of Corrections:

David and Lucaya Riley's Home 1

David and Lucaya Riley's Home 2

David and Lucaya Riley have three (3) adorable children that were well cared for prior to the incident that Occurred at the Ultra-Mart in Columbia, MO. when David Riley was arrested by the Columbia Police Department. These children became innocent victims of Prosecutor Brent Nelson’s underhanded prosecutorial techniques.  Here is a picture of David and Lucaya’s children.

David and Lucaya Riley's Children

And David had a happy family life that he shared with his brother Matthew who is a Chaplain in the Navy and his wife Lucaya who worked hard also to take care of their three (3) children and to support her husband in any way she could.  Below is a picture of Matthew, Lucaya, and David in happier times:

Matthew, Lucaya, and David Riley

Now, after Prosecutor Brent Nelson’s underhanded tactics in the David Riley case not only did Brent Nelson victimize David Riley, he also victimized David Riley’s family. He took a father away from his children, and the “bread winner” of the household away from his family. Now Lucaya and her three (3) children live in a one bedroom apartment in Austin, Texas. Lucaya and her three (3) children don’t even have reliable transportation in case of an emergency, and they are just barely getting by. Due to the unreliable transportation that they do have Lucaya can’t even bring her children up to Missouri to visit with their father. So far, there has been no justice for David Riley and his family.

But sometimes we get what we need in ways that we could have never conceived. Perhaps we can all help David Riley and his family get a little justice, and show Prosecutor Brent Nelson that if we would have been sitting on a Jury had David Riley’s case went to trial, and we saw the evidence that we have seen thus far; the verdict would have been much different than what Prosecutor Brent Nelson believes it would have been.

If you want to help David Riley’s family out and send this message to Prosecutor Brent Nelson, then please make a donation to help David Riley’s family to get by while David Riley is in the Missouri Department of Corrections. It is as simple as clicking the PayPal Donate button below and following the instructions.

Thank you for your time and attention.

This is David Riley’s Bail Bondsman. I had a late dinner with her and her significant other, Tom Gardner. Both Tin and Tom are really good people that also feel terrible about what Happened to David Riley. Tina got a first hand look at David Riley only about five (5) hours after he was arrested and she said that he still needed immediate medical attention.

Tina Bozarth is an Excellent Professional Bail Bondsman; if you or your relatives are ever in need of bail bonding services.

She’d also be happy to tell you about David’s Riley’s condition when she bonded him out if you want to call and ask her about it.

Stay tuned for the audio enhancement of The David Riley Arrest next week. I am almost positive that we are going to be able to have this audio file enhanced so that we can all hear what was really said in the parking lot of the Ultra Mart the night of David Riley’s arrest.

Now if Jill Wieneke wants to hold up a transcript and hand out the audio file from The Officer’s Lapel Mike that recorded David Riley’s arrest, then she should not mind us scrutinizing her evidence.

First, let’s listen to the sound file. The sound file is listed below:

David Riley Arrest Audio Full File With Computer Sounds Off

Now in order to keep from being accused of modifying this file in such a way that it is favorable to David Riley  we take certain steps to explain and authenticate the process of transferring audio file and converting them. This is what I am going to do now.

The audio file above was originally taken from an article in the Columbia Daily Tribune titled: Investigator Stirs Up Closed Case. I opened up the internal Mic on one of my laptops (an Alienware M17) and I let the Mic record the audio from the sound file that was in the above listed news article. The file format for that file was WMA (Windows Media Audio). I then checksummed the file to authenticate it’s digital signature. Below are the checksums for the WMA audio file:

David Riley Arrest Audio File Computer Sounds Off  WMA MD5 Checksum: E84DC7CAC0D095A6C65F00108A151C8D

David Riley Arrest Audio File Computer Sounds Off WMA SHA-1 Checksum: 28202E6BB832572E30F48A637DB1C0C2C3B562EB

Next I converted the WMA file to an MP3 File with an audio program named Goldwave. I then checksummed the new MP3 audio file. Below are the checksums for the MP3 audio file:

David Riley Arrest Audio File Computer Sounds Off MP3 MD5 Checksum:  975B86EDAF98C15DAE9EE5E41ABDCA30

David Riley Arrest Audio File Computer Sounds Off MP3 SHA1 Checksum: DD7F12DAF312C9B22CB9BFF532B733D336D46329

This authenticates evidence that is on the Alienware M17 Laptop. And this will be important in the near future, because I am having the audio file enhanced, and hopefully we will all be able to hear exactly what David Riley said to the Officer the night he was arrested at the Ultra-Mart on Paris Rd. in Columbia, MO.

For now, let’s take a look at the actual audio file transcript that I had made. I’d like to discuss some key points of this transcript.

Now lets try to get an understanding here before we go any further. An audio file is just that, it is a sound file. There are no visual images that accompany it. So, what we are hearing and what we believe happened based on the audio file are actually two different things. Because the sound file does not display images our mind interprets the sound file into a “guesstimate” of what is occurring on the sound file. But there are some pieces of information that we can extrapolate that do tell us some things without our mind having to guess at what is happening.

Below is the transcript of the audio file that was made by SpeakWrite:

David Riley Arrest Audio Transcription

Okay, so when we open this file up we see alot of cussing and swearing and it is all coming from David Riley. What David Riley is saying though is not really all that telling, or it is at least not as telling as what the Officer is saying in this transcript:

If you ever wanted proof that David Riley was initially complying with the Officer during his arrest, before he was kicked while he was down on the ground, look for it in the highlighted areas of the David Riley Arrest Audio Transcription. Think about this; if David Riley was not on the ground and in compliance with the Officer, then why did the Officer say: “Get on the ground. Stay on the ground.” and then approximately two (2) seconds later: “If you get up I am. Stay on the ground.” and then approximately three (3) seconds later: “Stay on the ground.”?

Think about what this means for a minute. If David Riley was not on the ground and in compliance, then why did the Officer tell him to “STAY on the ground”?

What happened here is fairly obvious. Looking at the video, listening the audio, and looking at the witness statements; this Officer kicked David Riley while he was on the ground and in compliance, and this enraged David Riley and he began to become very agitated.

And this begs the next question; Why did the Officer choose to kick David Riley instead of handcuffing David Riley? Had the Officer handcuffed David Riley, everything else that followed from that point forward would probably not have happened; unless the Police would beat a man that is handcuffed, that is??

Think about this for a while as you await the Audio Enhancement that is being worked on. Ask yourself the hard questions about this case. Don’t just take my word for what is happening, look at the video, listen to the audio, look at the transcript from the audi and make sure that everything you can clearly hear in the audio is on the transcript. Look at the witness statements. Decide for yourself.

The Audio File Enhancement should be up very soon. I am going to put it on this segment of this article.

Until then; stay tuned.

First I want to present some documents that were forwarded to me by the newspaper reporter that did this story: Private investigator champions an unusual case

The following documents are a press statement issued by the Columbia Police Officer’s Association in an attempt to defend the actions of the Officers involved in the aforementioned incident involving David Riley on my first blog post titled: The Interesting Case Of David Riley; The Arrest – Part (1)

Below are the documents for you to read:

Just Click The Following Link:   CPOA Press Release On David Riley Arrest

Now I want to stop here for a second and talk a little about my experiences last night on August 16, 2010 at the Columbia City Hall Meeting. I spoke on this issue concerning David Riley tonight, and I made thumb drives for each of the Columbia City Council Members, with all of my evidence on them. I understand that these thumb drives were distributed to the City Council. There is one thing that I can say about the Columbia City Council, they do give their citizens a voice, and they do patiently listen to what their citizens have to say. And trust me, after some of the speakers I saw speaking last night; this is no small task. We have a very decent and fair City Council here in Columbia, MO.

After I spoke at the Columbia City Council Meeting, I was on my way to exiting the Columbia City Council Chamber, and Mr. Eric Dearmont asked if he could speak with me outside. Mr. Dearmont is the person that put together the press release that you should have just read above, titled “CPOA Press Release On David Riley Arrest”. Mr. Dearmont seemed to be a very pleasant and professional man. And he wanted to ask me if I would retract the Officer’s name from my first blog post. I agreed to do this, I don’t want to cause anyone any undue stress here. I want to make the public aware of what happened here. This Officer also deserves to have a private life, and my intent has never been to cause him stress. I also met the Officer that initially confronted David Riley the night that this incident occurred. The Officer was very calm, not upset, and seemed like a very decent person too. I apologized to this Officer for any stress that my mentioning of his name in my post may have caused him; and I assured him that I would take his name off of the blog as soon as I got home. He thanked me and shook my hand.

Before I go any further, and post more evidence here on this blog, please try to understand something here. This case is like most of these cases are. There really is no “bad people” here in this case; there is a “bad situation”. This Officer should also be recognized for the tough job he does. For risking his safety for us day in and day out, because despite what side of the fence you line up on in this issue, this Officer is still out there doing a job that puts him in service to us. I am here to address this “bad situation”, and hopefully see some good come from this. I am not here to maliciously damage anyone. I also invited Mr. Dearmont and the Officer to post on this blog anytime they want, and guaranteed them that they would not be moderated for posting their side of the story here. I hope that they do know that my invitation was sincere, and they are welcomed here to discuss this issue, if they want to come here and do that.

Now, I want to address Mr. Dearmont’s press release.

First, we start out with this quote: “[e]veryone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” from Mr. Dearmont. Well, facts are a funny thing, because while we all want to believe that they are just exactly what happened, we must realize that one man’s fact may well be another man’s fallacy. We all interpret information differently. The methods in which we use to extrapolate information varies from person to person. And somewhere in the way we interpret information and extrapolate information, there comes variances in what we call “the facts”. Mr. Dearmont’s quote may well apply to him as much as it does me.

Second Mr. Dearmont says: “Unfortunately, in a number of recent communications related to the arrest and subsequent prosecution of David Riley a number of individuals have choosen to present to the public a large amount of false and misleading information”. Did anyone expect to see this press release prefaced with anything different? That is how you start defending your case, isn’t it? By trying to cast some doubt on the other guy’s claims. Well, I have a few simple questions for Mr. Dearmont. (1) Mr. Dearmont, what happened to the audio file from the juvenile’s audio recording device that was given to the Officer the night of the incident with David Riley? (2) You do understand don’t you that this audio file could have very well cleared up the issue as to what David Riley actually said to the Officer that night, don’t you? (3) Naturally you also understand that this casts the Police that were involved in the arrest of David Riley that night in a suspicious light, don’t you?

Third, Mr. Dearmont states: “Both of these minors had clean criminal histories and had never been arrested. Both individuals agreed to assist the Columbia Police Department in its effort to limit the unlawful distribution of alcohol to minors.” I don’t know why this is important, it certainly does not change the substance of the situation that occurred with David Riley on September 29, 2009.

Fourth, Mr. Dearmont states: “Mr. Riley apparently noticed the Officer  observing him and initiated a communication in which he demanded that the Officer “give [Riley] his fucking wallet” and stated that the Officer  did not “want to fuck with [him].” Riley then began to approach the Officer  in an aggressive manner.” I would implore you to all watch the video below. Watch it as many times as you need to. Watch it carefully. Pay attention to what is happening outside of the store when David Riley exits the store.:

Look, the one good thing about this site that Mr. Dearmont has not done is this; I am presenting you the evidence here. Don’t take my word for what happened, don’t take Mr. Dearmont’s word for what happened, be your own Judge. Look at the video yourself. You don’t have to be told what is happening, just look carefully, as many times as you need to look. And then make your own assessment as to what happened.  The difference in what Mr. Dearmont wants and what I want here is this; I am not asking you to believe me; Mr. Dearmont is however asking you to believe him. All I am asking you to do is look at and listen to the evidence in this case, and then draw your own conclusion.

You will see that there is no way the Officer could have displayed his badge, but if the video is not enough for you; then listen to the statement of Kendrick Hardrick, the young man in the blue jacket that was seen in the video walking out of the store when this occurred, listen to his audio recorded statement below:

Kendrick Hardrick Interview 20091006_194407_192.168.0.14,10058

You will see and hear evidence that David Riley did not say “Give me your wallet” to the Officer, instead he said “What in the fuck are you looking at” and “Keep right on walking”.  David Riley has maintained that this is what he said, but there is also an independent witness that corroborates this named Desiree Kemp; the lady that was in the Driver’s Seat of the car the night we saw this incident occur with David Riley on the video above.

Listen to Desiree Kemp’s statement below, she clearly says that David said “What the fuck are you looking at”. She clearly states that her and David thought they were being robbed this night, thereby indicating that the Officer did not display his badge that night.

Desiree Kemp Audio Recorded Statement: Desiree Kemp Audio Recorded Interview 10 07 2009

There is clear and compelling evidence that David did not attempt to rob this Officer, as the Officer has stated and maintained since this incident occurred. There is clear and compelling evidence that the Officer did not display his badge or even say he was a Police Officer in the form of two (2) independent witness statements.

Do you believe for a minute that there is some vast criminal conspiracy to cast this Officer in a bad light, perpetrated by David Riley, Desiree Kemp, and Kendrick Hardrick? There is a more simpler, logical, and reasonable explanation; isn’t there?

Fifth, Mr. Dearmont states: “At this time the Officer  produced his gun and badge, immediately identifying himself as a police officer and ordering Mr. Riley to the ground. Riley did not immediately comply and only dropped to his knees after being order multiple times to lie completely down. While on his hands and knees, Riley continued acting aggressively and attempted to stand. The Officer, using the bottom of his foot, pushed him back to the ground and told him to remain there.” Again, look at the video, listen to the statements from the witnesses here, look at the totality of the evidence in this case. The totality of the evidence directly contradicts Mr. Dearmont’s account of what happened the night David Riley was arrested. Desiree Kemp states that the Officer never displayed his badge. Kendrick Hardrick states that he never saw the Officer display his badge or identify himself. Are both of these people lying to cover for David Riley? The only one honest here is the Police Officer, and everyone else is lying? Do you really believe that? Does Mr. Dearmont honestly expect you to believe this?

Everything after this last statement I quoted is really not even relevant. There is one thing that did not happen that could have prevented all of this. Instead of kicking David Riley, the Officer could have simply handcuffed David Riley, and then there would have been no need for David Riley to take the beating he took that night.  The question begs to be asked, why did the Officer feel it was unsafe to handcuff David Riley, but it was completely safe to provoke David Riley by kicking him? Readers, does that even make sense to you?

And yes, David Riley was mad as hell that night! He had just been beaten, arrested, and taken to the hospital and taunted by the Police (the taunts that David Riley had to listen to will come out in the next segment of this blog). I’d be mad too. I’d be cussing too. I’d be absolutely furious! Who wouldn’t have been after having the Police give them a concussion, a black eye, and a fractured arm, then arresting them on a bogus charge, then having to go to the hospital and be taunted, and then having to go to jail, and then having to spend $5,000.00 of your money on a Bail Bondsman for something that you should have never had to pay for. Of course you’d be mad, and probably cussing too.

Let’s recap real quick.

You have the video above, watch it. Watch it as many times as you need to. Just simply watch it and draw your own conclusion.

You have the audio recorded statement from Desiree Kemp: Desiree Kemp Audio Recorded Interview 10 07 2009 Listen to it as much as you need to!

You have the audio recorded statement from Kendrick Hardrick: Kendrick Hardrick Interview 20091006_194407_192.168.0.14,10058 Listen to it as much as you need to!

All of these pieces of evidence add up to something vastly different than what you are being told. Think for yourself. You don’t have to be told how to look at this. Just carefully examine these first pieces of evidence, and carefully consider what they mean. Then we will move onto even more evidence that supports our position about what happened to David Riley on September 29, 2009.

Until then, stay tuned.

Undercover Officer Target Of A Holdup

David Riley After Arrest On 09/29/200

A man leaving a Columbia convenience store Monday night tried to rob another man of his wallet. But the intended victim was an undercover Columbia police officer who was preparing at about 11:30 p.m. to check for alcohol sales compliance at the Ultra Mart Convenience and Liquor Store, 2102 Paris Road.

The unidentified officer drew his firearm and displayed a police badge, police said, but the suspect refused to cooperate. Other officers arrived and arrested David W. Riley, 30, of 3600 Highway 163 on suspicion of resisting arrest and second-degree robbery. Riley was charged with both offenses yesterday, and bond was set at $50,000.

Now I know that on the face, this article makes David Riley look like some sort of a “thug”; but understand that this article is not accurate. If you will continue reading this I think I can give you an alternate view of what happened that night.

(1) David Riley was drunk and belligerent that night.

(2) David Riley DID make an intimidating comment to the Undercover Officer that night.

(3) David Riley NEVER at anytime attempted to rob this Officer.

(4) David Riley initially believed that he was being robbed at the beginning of this incident.

(5) David Riley was completely compliant with this Officer’s commands once he realized that this was a Police Officer.

(6) David Riley at no time attempted to resist arrest.

(7) The Officer exceeded his authority as a Police Officer.

(8) The Officer  did not identify himself as a Police Officer until after David Riley was already face down on the ground in complete compliance with the Officer.

(9) The Officer did not even attempt to handcuff David Riley while he was face down on the ground to try to safely control this situation.

(10) The Officer DID kick David Riley while he was on the ground and in complete compliance with his commands, so hard that it rolled David Riley over and fractured David Riley’s arm.

(11) After the Officer’s back up arrived, the Police Officers from the Columbia Police Department proceeded to beat David Riley so bad that they gave him a concussion, a black eye, and an even further fractured arm.

David Riley Approximately 5 Hours After Arrest

A key element of this case is what was actually communicated between David Riley and the Officer the night this incident occurred. The Officer claims that David said “Give me your wallet”, which could make David Riley culpable for the charge of Attempted Robbery. One important note to make here is that both the Officer and the informant that he was using to perform these alcohol compliance checks were wired for sound when this incident occurred. MYSTERIOUSLY, the audio recording from the informant was erased, and the Officer’s recording was unintelligible, and could not be clearly heard. Which would normally make this a situation of the Officer’s word against David Riley’s word. But, not so fast……..

David Riley claims that the Officer, who was working in plain clothes and undercover that night was staring him down and said something to him, for which David Riley claims he responded with “What in the fuck are you looking at”? Now typically, we would be inclined to believe the Police Officer over a person that was intoxicated and clearly rude to the Officer. But in this case there is further evidence that supports what David Riley claims happened. Remember that David Riley had another person with him? Remember that she was in the car with the windows down and the door opened when this verbal exchange took place between the Officer and David Riley? Well this person with David Riley is a lady named Desiree Kemp; and Desiree was close enough to clearly hear the words that were being exchanged between the Officer and David Riley.

Below is a three page witness statement given by Desiree Kemp and the recorded audio interview between RMRI, Inc. P.I. Karen Giboney and Desiree Kemp.

Desiree Kemp Witness Statement Page 1

Desiree Kemp Witness Statement Page 2

Desiree Kemp Witness Statement Page 3

Click Here To Listen To The Desiree Kemp Interview: Desiree Kemp interview 10 07 2009

For now, I think the reader can see that there is a little more to this case than what the public has been made aware of. I am going to present this case in segments. This is the first segment titled “The Interesting Case Of David Riley; The Arrest” and I will be adding more information to this first segment in the near future. The next segment will be titled “The Interesting Case Of David Riley; The Prosecution” and we’ll examine some of the “dirty tricks” the Prosecutor used to scare David Riley into this ridiculous plea. It is my belief that what the prosecutor did in this case was so egregious that it bordered on Prosecutorial Misconduct!

Stay tuned.

Now read our follow up to this post at: The Interesting Case Of David Riley; The Arrest – Part (2)

The fact of the matter is that while the Private Investigator may not be the "Jack Of All Trades Legal Expert"; it is often likely that he or she is the "Master Of One". Often times an Attorney will hire a Private Investigator on certain cases because the Attorney’s case will be unique enough to require an expert. For example, a person charged with illegal possession of certain digital images on a computer, may require the expertise of a Computer Forensics Examiner or a person charged with embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars from a large company, may require the expertise of a Financial Fraud Investigator or a Forensic Accountant. There is no way that an Attorney can keep up with all of the ever changing laws and protocols for these specific areas of investigation, so he or she will hire someone that does keep up with these laws and protocols in these  very specific areas of investigation. And this is what makes excellent Attorneys, excellent; and top notch business people, top notch. Knowing what your weakness is, and understanding how to strengthen that weakness.

Personally speaking, I’d rather take legal advice on Frauds and Scams from Bill Branscum, than any Attorney that I know. I’d rather take advice from a person that has the technical knowledge of a given subject, understands the "theory" of a given subject AND has the experience to practically apply correct solutions to problems that may come up in instances that involve a given subject matter, than someone that just has technical knowledge and understands "theory" of a given subject matter. Most smart Attorneys will agree that nothing beats an expert with practical experience.

I think the public would be hard pressed to find an Attorney that would understand more about E-Mail Interception Legal Issues than Dallas, Texas Private Investigator Brian Ingram . What one has to try to understand here is that these Experts might know more than the Attorney in their chosen area of expertise, because their particular area of expertise is ALL they have to know about in order to make their living, in other words "it is what they do" while the Attorney is working various types of cases all of the time and may not see the particular type of case he or she would hire the Private Investigator or the Expert on but once in a great while.

And if I were charged with a serious crime in the state of California, I’d just assume take advice from someone like Sue Sarkis as I would any Attorney. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons an Attorney might hire someone like Sue Sarkis to assist them in a case might be because she probably knows more about subjects like evidence admissibility issues in a criminal defense case than the Attorney does.

Often times Private Investigators will seek advice on certain legal issues that may pertain to a case that they are working, and they will often be told to seek counsel from an attorney. And often enough this is an absurd comment to make to a fellow Private Investigator. It is typically a comment made by a mediocre Private Investigator  that just wants to have something to post or say so that they might get some sort of minor acknowledgment. The fact of the matter is, most of these posts for advice are just seeking ideas and experiences that other fellow Private Investigators may have had that could provide valuable insight into unique problems that the poster is facing in a case they may be working. And often times, the Private Investigator that is asking for advice is asking in a place where there may be a REAL Expert on the topic. But, because some "Smart Alec" would criticize, critique, or be critical of their advice (often times while not being as well credentialed as the Expert that would be offering advice); that person with the expertise may feel that it is not even worth it to try to make a post to help a fellow Private Investigator out. There is nothing illegal about giving FREE advice; and the person that is accepting the FREE advice should bare in mind that the advice is worth exactly what is being paid for it. That in and of itself does not make the advice bad advice, what determines whether or not the advice is bad or good is simply the source of the advice.

I hope that we are not discouraging some of our own very valuable Experts from offering their own expert advice free of charge by being too abrasive to them or critical of them when they choose to make an insightful post in response to another Private Investigator asking for help. I want to try to insure that we encourage people to post their opinions, and if we have a problem with their opinion or we think their advice might not be correct or good advice, learn how to diplomatically point it out (often times this can be done with a simple question instead of a strong or harsh remark).

It is my sincere hope that as Private Investigators, in the future perhaps we might consider listening to our own Experts, instead of trying to gain some favoritism from one of our attorney clients by telling our fellow Private Investigators to go spend good money on them rather than to take the advice of what may be a more knowledgeable Expert standing by and willing to lend his or her expertise if only the less than knowledgeable people would just "shut up and listen"…..

Ricky B. Gurley

Posted in Private Investigations ]]> http://rmriincblog.com/2009/11/16/sometimes-the-private-investigator-knows-more-than-the-attorney/feed/ 0 rmriinc http://rmriincblog.com/2009/06/28/the-criminal-defense-investigators-adversarial-role/ http://rmriincblog.com/2009/06/28/the-criminal-defense-investigators-adversarial-role/#comments Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:56:55 +0000 Rick Gurley http://rmriinc.wordpress.com/?p=21 ]]> Often times I am asked if it bothers me that “I help to put criminals back on the street”? I get asked this questions in various forms, sometimes “harshly”, sometimes in intelligent debate and/or conversation. I understand that this question is usually a “non-malicious question”; yet I can’t seem to get over the implications that this question makes about the person asking it….

First; let us consider this question: “does it bother you that you help put criminals back on the street”? When you consider this question carefully you can only assume that the person asking this question believes that the defendant in a criminal case is guilty before he or she has ever had their day in court. The logic of this question is that if I work a case as a Criminal Defense Investigator; for a Defendant that is accused of a crime, I am assisting a guilty person in trying to get away with this crime. So; when you think about the person asking the question, you begin to see a person that does not seem to believe in the presumption of innocence, the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”, and the practice of giving a person accused of a crime due process. Of course that person’s views would change considerably if that person was charged with a crime.  The correct philosophy in our current Judicial system is that a person accused and charged with a crime is completely innocent of said crime until they are convicted in a court of law; or at least that is supposed to be the way criminals cases are viewed by our current Judicial System…….. Yes; the questions we ask can often tell much about us….

Second; I think it is important to get into the process of Justice. Our Justice System is designed to be adversarial; the Prosecution and the Defense are adversaries in criminal cases. Both sides are supposed to work hard to prove their opposing theories in a criminal case. Both sides will use various tools that are at their disposal; Investigators, Expert Witnesses, Technology, etc., etc. in trying to prove their case. The hopes are that through this adversarial process, and the hard work that both sides have to do in this adversarial process, the truth will come out; and justice can be served.

Third; I think it is important to define the role of the Criminal Defense Investigator. In a criminal case the Criminal Defense Investigator first and foremost must remain dispassionate, and emotionally detached from the case; no good can come from a biased Investigator in a criminal case. It is important to remember that the quest is for truth and justice, not for a “win”. The Criminal Defense Investigator will assist the Defense Attorney in building his or her case by gathering evidence that will allow the Defense Attorney to accurately assess and evaluate their case. The Criminal Defense Investigator knows that he or she is simply a “tool” that the Defense Attorney has chosen to use in a very delicate process, with very serious consequences. So, it is imperative for the Criminal Defense Investigator to be dispassionate, emotionally detached, and yet also able take his or her job VERY seriously.

Having made these three points, I want to answer the question we are confronting here very bluntly. “Does it bother you that you help put criminals back on the street”? My answer is a resounding NO! Because in a criminal case without a fair process, where the rules and protocols are not strictly adhered to; there is no justice. Even if one guilty man goes free due to poor, inadequate, or dishonest work on behalf of the Prosecution it is the lesser of two evils when you consider that the alternative threatens the very fabric of a fair and impartial Justice System (the term “Prosecution” in this article includes the Investigators, Expert Witnesses, and anyone else working on the side of the Prosecution). The long term effect of the adversarial system used in our current Judicial System is that everybody gets better at their jobs; good Defense Attorneys challenge Prosecutors to be better and vise versa; good Criminal Defense Investigators challenge Law Enforcement Investigators to be better Investigators and vise versa.  I should also mention that I believe it is better to let one hundred guilty people go free than it is to imprison just one innocent man. We can always bring a person to court, but we can never get the years back that an innocent person spends in prison.