Serial Killers or Serial Liars?

As I read the recent articles and news programs on Samuel Little, a California inmate who has confessed to 93 murders after 700 hours of interrogation by a Texas Ranger, it seemed like Deja vu.

Samuel Little

In the mid-1980s I was working the homicide of a young woman wherein the defense had suggested that the alternative suspects were Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Toole, two drifters incarcerated in Texas.  At the time, Lucas and Toole had become infamous as "serial killers." The two were allegedly confessing to thousands of murders. I was skeptical, but since the defense had raised the issue, I was required to follow up.

Henry Lee Lucas Ottis Toole

I went to the Texas Rangers’ office in Georgetown, Texas, where I met with Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Toole. Investigators from across the county were lined up to meet with them. I had to make an appointment.

I was astounded when I walked into the Ranger's office and they had set Lucas up in the office with a desk and map and pictures.  The Rangers told me before I went in to the office to be sure and compliment Lucas on his “art,” which I neglected to do.

After meeting with Lucas (who had one eye weeping fluid down his face…..), I interviewed Ottis Toole. My efforts were a waste of time.

When I left Texas, I had a sense that Lucas and Toole were actually "interviewing the interviewers."  They would get a little bit of information about a case from the detectives who were interviewing them, spin it a little and regurgitate just enough in detail that the detectives were able to "ex-clear" or close their cases.  The investigators were able to return to their departments and to the victim's families from all over the United States and tell them that the death of their friend or loved one had been "solved."  

The reality was Lucas and Toole were "serial liars" who got a great deal of attention from the Texas Rangers and seemed to relish the attention and the notoriety. Lucas had been convicted of three murders, including that of his mother years ago. I think Toole may have been convicted of six. There was no doubt they were murderers.

After detectives from all over the United States made appointments and traveled to Texas to interview Lucas and Toole, in 1998, Lucas recanted his confessions as a “hoax.” I am not sure about what happened with Toole’s.

There is no doubt that Lucas and Toole had suffered horrible backgrounds and committed multiple murders,

 but they were smart enough to gain a lot of attention as well as some special treatment for their endeavors.

I hope that Little is not taking law enforcement for a ride as did Lucas and Toole.

H. Ellis Armistead

Wrongful Convictions: Introduction

Did you know that nearly 80% of wrongful convictions are the result of misidentification by an eye witness? 

 I recently attended the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers conference in Phoenix. The theme was “Preventing Wrongful Convictions: Eyewitness Misidentification and False Confessions.”

The eyewitness discussions focused on the many variables that affect witness identifications and the steps lawyers and investigators can take to review these frequently outdated identification procedures

Over my next few posts, I will cover the problems with eyewitness identifications, as well as the problems with false confessions among juveniles and those with mental limitations.  

Due Diligence

Conducting due diligence research of an opposing party in litigation, a potential client in a personal injury case or an investor in a business deal is nothing more than good business.

In the world of social media, sophisticated copying machines and software, it is easier than ever to either create a false identity or alter and “pump up” your credentials and financials.

Many business deals go bad because at the last minute, it is discovered that one of the participants has misrepresented his or her background. Attorneys, after spending thousands of dollars and numerous hours on a personal injury suit can find that their client has not told them the truth.

The time to start due diligence is at the beginning of a case, before you and your client have invested a lot of money and energy putting a strategy or a deal together

Each investigation is unique and should be tailored to the individual matter. The investigation involves more that just a Google search or Lexis/Nexis search.

Leave it to the professionals. Don’t get surprised.

Congratulations Rachel!

Rachel has been with Armistead Investigators since 2016.

We are proud to announce that Rachel Roberts, CLI and Senior Investigator with Armistead Investigators has obtained the Board Certified Criminal Defense Investigator designation through the Criminal Defense Investigation Training Council (CDITC).

The objective of the CDITC is focused on elevating the discipline of criminal defense and due process investigation to the level of significance and importance that it deserves. The professional CCDI’s primary role is to defend the rights afforded by the United States Constitution, specifically the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, which define the protections afforded to the accused.

Congratulations Brandé!

Hats off to our investigator Brandé Micheau for receiving her certification as a forensic testimonial evidence recovery interviewer. Brandé worked incredibly hard studying witness interview strategies, the component methods of an investigation, ethical considerations, and visual imagery techniques in order to pass the CFI-FTER exam and receive this very reputable certificate.

Cellular Call Detail Records

Introduction

Cellular carriers store a wide variety of information about how, when, and where customers use their cell phones. A search warrant or subpoena to the carrier can return (among other things) Call Detail Records (CDRs), which describe calling and TXT’ing activity.

Extracting probative findings from CDRs requires an understanding of how cellular networks are designed and operated, as well as knowledge of how CDRs can, can’t, and shouldn’t be used. Because of this, many defense teams aren’t leveraging the CDRs frequently found within discovery, even though they may hold exculpatory or mitigating evidence.

Armistead Investigators has the tools, expertise, and insights necessary to assist with cases involving CDRs. This article provides a brief, and in places over-simplified, introduction to working with CDRs.

Cellular Networks 101

Cell towers are everywhere. The diagram below shows the locations of one carrier’s towers around the Denver and foothills area. Note how the tower spacing varies, depending on factors like population and terrain.

Each cell tower typically holds several antennas each designed and precisely pointed to provide high-quality, highly-reliable communications for a finite area around the tower. While carriers disclose the direction each antenna points, they won’t reveal its exact coverage area (they consider that to be proprietary information).

An antenna’s coverage area can be estimated, however, using knowledge of tower spacing and common antenna design parameters. The diagram below shows the estimated coverage areas of two antennas on a tower along I-70 near Evergreen.

What’s in a CDR?

CDRs are provided in a big table (typically a spreadsheet). This table documents activity for a single phone number for a given period. In simple terms, there’s a row for each call or TXT, and numerous columns containing metadata about that call or TXT.

While each carrier provides different metadata, the following information is almost always present in some way, shape, or form:

• Date and time
• Incoming and outgoing phone numbers
• The geographic location of the cell tower(s) the phone used
• Which antenna(s) on the tower(s) the phone used

Approximating Phone Location From CDRs

Because the CDR tells us the location of the cell tower a phone used at a particular date and time, the phone must have been in the general vicinity of that tower. But the CDR also indicates the antenna(s) the phone used; doesn’t that help refine the phone’s location? The answer is “possibly,” after taking into account factors such as:

● We don’t know the exact coverage area of the antenna
● Radio signals can be reflected and bent ... meaning the phone might be close to, but not actually within, the antenna’s coverage area

On the flip side, knowing the antenna(s) used can also be extremely revealing. Refer back to the antenna coverage diagram above. If a CDR showed that the phone used both antennas during one short call, it would be reasonable to place the phone in a car driving along I-70.

Pattern-of-Life Analysis

One of the more interesting applications of CDRs is to infer the day-to-day behavioral patterns of a person. Given enough CDRs, and the assumption that a person always has their phone with them, one can determine:

• Areas the person frequently visits
• Days and times they typically visit those areas
• The people most often communicated with
• Where they “lay their head” at night (inferred from the phone’s use of the same antenna from the evening through the next morning)

Conclusion

Armistead Investigators can assist our clients with many aspects of working with CDRs, including:

• Formulating technical language for preservation letters and subpoenas
• Interpreting, and possibly challenging, law enforcement findings
• Creating maps and animations showing a phone’s location
• Gleaning investigative leads
• Conducting Pattern-of-Life analyses

If you’d like to chat about a case involving CDRs, contact Chris Wells, the senior digital investigator for Armistead Investigators, at chris@armisteadinvestigations.com or 303-825-2373 ext. 5.

Writing the Report of the Interview

The Investigative Process and The Attorney Series - Part 4

The fourth step in the investigative process is writing the report of the interview.  This may be the most critical step in the process.

We generally write our reports in the first person and include them as a summary of the interview, followed by bullet points of what the person relayed to our team.  If there is an exact quote we place the quote in quotation marks.

We include int the report everything the person divulged, both good and bad.  It is essential that the attorney receives not only the good, but the bad information that a witness may have brought to the table.  In criminal defense work, often the information from the subject is bad, but there’s the old adage that “bad can be good.”  There is nothing worse than being surprised by a witness on the stand who had bad information that an investigator did not relay to you.

All of the reports should be labeled attorney/client work product.

In our reports, my preference is that the report contain the following paragraph:  “This report has been prepared for counsel and is subject to the protections of the attorney/client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine.  Information obtained during the interview has been reorganized and summarized for clarity and is not a verbatim transcription of the interview.   The report contains no impressions, thoughts and analysis of the information provided by the witness.”

In reality we do not include in our reports personal mental impressions and thoughts about a witness.  These are presented in a separate memo to the attorney in case the report ever has to be discovered.

The report should not contain a lot of extraneous information, but rather, information pertinent to the topic and subject at hand.

It is impossible to record exactly what someone says, and if that is the goal, then a tape recorder, with the permission of the person being interviewed, should be used. We believe that recorders generally hinder the transfer of information and make the subject more cautious with their words. As indicated earlier, we prefer the summary technique and require the attorney meets the witness, if possible, before placing them on the stand.

If there is a conflict we are ready to take the stand and testify.

Follow us:    Facebook    Twitter    LinkedIn