Private Detective Blog - Spy Center.com

Skip Tracing: What is Skip Tracing?

Skip tracing generally involves finding information about a person who has gone missing. The reasons for the person’s disappearance can be many including, the most common, bad debts, mental illness, domestic violence, and involvement in nefarious activities among others. Investigators use a number of known and tested techniques to locate missing people.

Though skip tracing is not your regular type of service which any collection agency can do. It’s a specialist field and the skills involved can be learned easily. With the advent of internet, almost anyone can now find information about missing persons if they dig deep enough. A skip tracer’s services may be required to – repossess something like a mobile home, collect outstanding debts, find life insurance beneficiaries, locate a long lost friend, relative or loved one, locate missing heirs or people; the reasons why a skip tracer may be varied and many.

Most of us are aware of the most common ways when trying to locate a person gone missing. Usually, a person who has ‘gone missing’ intentionally or in hurry leaves behind a paper trail. This makes it easy for the skip tracer to find the person. Besides this, telephone books, yellow pages, telephone directories on CD-ROMs, and directory resources are the starting point of the skip tracing process. Though these may not always yield results, but they can definitely produce new leads. Next step, checking all the records like public records, court files, motor vehicle records, property records, which can prove to be valuable sources of information.

It is extremely important to verify and pursue the data (leads) found and search (dig) each source until all leads are exhausted with skip tracing. Nowadays, computerised records can provide a wealth of information on the missing person. Investigators who skip trace have the experience and resources to interpret accurate leads from inaccurate ones. by private-investigator-detective.com

When you think that your spouse is having an affair, you begin looking for different signs of cheating. Do you think your spouse is cheating on you?
To find out if you have a cheating spouse you may not need to hire a private investigator nor invest in expensive surveillance equipment - as a beginner you should look for quite obvious signs of the cheating Spouse.
Below are the most common signs that your spouse, girlfriend, boyfriend, wife or husband might be cheating on you. Generally these signs are displayed unknowingly by the cheater, therefore, it is easy to spot these sudden changes in behavior. These signs should only be used as a tool to gauge your suspicions. You will want to investigate further to gain proof before speaking to them about the situation.
One of the easiest ways to gain proof is through monitoring their computer activities. In today’s age we have found that majority of spouses use the computer and Internet as a means of cheating, communicating with the cheater, etc
Below are some “Signs of a cheating spouse”, wife, husband, boyfriend, or girlfriend … FIND OUT NOW!
When your spouse suddenly begins to treat you extremely nice; more than the usual.
When your spouse does not want sex or makes excuses to not have sex.
Arrives home smelling of perfume/cologne or another person’s body.
Begins to put distance between you or shows a lack of interest in what has been the routine with few, if any, excuses for the change in their behavior.
When they will not allow you access to their computer or they suddenly shut down the computer when you walk into the room. They may give password protect their laptop or computer to keep out suspicious eyes. Or they stay up to “work” or “play a game” on the computer after you go to bed.

Excessive use of internet, especially late at night, is a red flag.
When he/she treats you abusively or with disrespect or may begin to find fault in everything you do in an attempt to justify his/her affair.
When he/she goes straight into the shower or bath on arrival at home.
When he has lipstick or strange hairs on his clothing or in the car. Finding strange numbers, condoms can also be clues.
To get connected with private investigators near you fill out this simple form.
When they begin to make requests or suggest wild play during sex which you have never done before. They may also show an increased interest in sex or sexual things.
Breaks their routine at work and home for no logical reason.
Becomes suddenly forgetful; thoughts are elsewhere.
When your partner’s friends make complaint of sudden changes in his/her behavior.
When you notice that they are reluctant to kiss you or accept your affection.
When they ignore or criticize your affection.
When you notice credit card charges for gifts (such as florist or jewelry) that you didn’t receive.
When they begin to make sudden and excessive purchases of clothes or an unexplained change in clothing style. Purchase of a sexy underwear or lingerie may be a hint.
When you notice an unexplained increase in ATM withdrawals.
When you notice an increased attention to losing weight or paying more attention to their appearance.
Starts lying without a reason.
When they begin to volunteer to go to the post office, rushes to check the mail before you do or perhaps without even telling you.
Gets mysterious phone calls or when they leave the room to talk on the phone.
When they start exercising - going to the Gym, often at “odd” times.
Spends an excessive amount of time on the computer when you are asleep.
When they start to buy new clothes or jewelry for someone who is special for them..
When they use a low voice or whisper on the phone or hangs up quickly.
Coming home at odd times with no explanation.
When they set up a separate cell phone account that is billed to their office.
Suddenly your spouse starts to try new love techniques.
Suddenly wants more sex, more often.
When your spouse doesn’t pay attention in the home activities or is away from home at nights  on trips, more than previously.

Your spouse doesn’t seem interested in “you”. There’s always something else to do rather than “talk”!

There are changes in wake up time and sleeping times.

When he/she insists or tells to keep the toys of child away from the car.

If you are suspicious you can hire a private investigator but even before that its better to consult an attorney. By Private-Investigator-Detective.com

Fox News 

A private investigator hired by Kate and Gerry McCann believes their missing daughter Madeleine was kidnapped by a pedophile ring in the Iberian Peninsula or northern Africa, and that she will be returned by Christmas, the Daily Mail reported.

Click here to view the full report from The Daily Mail.

“I cannot say who she is with because we are putting together conclusive proof we can present to the authorities so they can proceed with their arrests,” Francisco Marco is quoted telling the Spanish newspaper Metro.

Marco promised last month that he would find Madeleine, 4, who disappeared May 3 from a vacation apartment in Portugal.

Marco heads up the Barcelona-based Metodo 3, which has been working for the McCanns since September, the Daily Mail reported. Metodo 3 has been criticized by Portuguese police as “small fry” and “irrelevant,” the newspaper reported.

“I have always said publicly Madeleine is alive,” Marco reportedly told Metro. “I have to believe it 100 percent because I know how to look for living people, not dead ones. But I have no proof Madeleine is alive.

“We have proof of her movements after her kidnap and we know she was alive the day after her disappearance. We are not certain she left Portugal.

“I talk of certainties because we know which group may have her or could have kidnapped her to then sell her on to others,” Marco said.

Federal agents Thursday arrested three people connected with a Belfair private investigation firm who are accused of gathering confidential information on individuals through trickery by calling the offices of such agencies as the Internal Revenue Service and Social Security Administration.

Federal investigators say they uncovered schemes in which a caller to a government agency, hospital or other office would pretend to be another person, then ask for that person’s income tax return, medical records or other confidential information.

Charged in a multicount indictment with what has become known as “pretexting” are Emilio and Brandy Torrella and Steven Berwick, all associated with BNT Investigations. The indictment is only the second time federal charges have been brought against accused pretexters, according to U.S. Attorney Jeff Sullivan of Seattle.

Among the charges faced by the three from the Kitsap County private investigation firm are conspiracy, mail fraud and aggravated identity theft.

The first such charges were brought in California in the high-profile case of the Hewlett-Packard corporate board’s starting a leak investigation in which a private investigator used pretexting to gather information about journalists who may have received confidential information from the board. One private investigator pleaded guilty in January to federal charges of aggravated identity theft and conspiracy.

In this case, law firms, collections agencies and estranged spouses involved in divorces hired private investigators, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney Katheryn Frierson. Frierson would not reveal the names of the firms or further identify them, saying the matter was still under investigation.

Frierson said the BNT private eyes leveraged information such as Social Security numbers and dates of birth of other people to lend them credence when they assumed the identities of their victims during pretexting telephone calls. Frierson said they might pretend to have a kidnapped child or be a battered spouse to get the information they wanted. “Anything that would embarrass or work on the good will” of the agencies to get them to turn over information, she said.

Sullivan warned the people who hired the private investigators that “we want them to understand that this is a crime.”

He added that “we will take (the investigation) wherever it goes.”

Frierson, in response to a question at a Thursday morning news conference, said any illegally obtained information that was used by attorneys or litigants in a civil lawsuit could potentially affect the course of that suit.

Special Agent in Charge Ron Legan of the Social Security Administration’s Office of Inspector General said the pretexting came to light about a year ago when a state Department of Labor employee received repeated inquiries about the same person.

In addition to the three Belfair residents, seven private investigators from places such as Texas, New York and Oregon were indicted by a Seattle federal grand jury for their alleged involvement in the use of pretexting to obtain confidential information on more than 12,000 people around the nation.

The Belfair residents pleaded not guilty Thursday in U.S. District Court in Tacoma and were released pending a trial Feb. 11. by PInow Staff

The Toronto family doctor whose patient died after undergoing liposuction in September hired a private investigator to pose as a patient and spy on a competitor she alleges in a lawsuit is responsible for her drop in business.

Dr. Behnaz Yazdanfar, a family physician without a surgical specialty or hospital privileges, performed the liposuction.

She has filed a $300,000 slander suit against plastic surgeon Dr. Sean Rice based on a secretly recorded conversation he had with a private investigator who visited him last month pretending to be interested in breast enlargement surgery and liposuction.

Rice was one of the physicians who tried unsuccessfully to revive Krista Stryland when she was brought into North York General Hospital on Sept. 20 after liposuction surgery at Yazdanfar’s Toronto Cosmetic Clinic on Yonge St.

Stryland, a 32-year-old real estate agent and mother, died in hospital.

In a statement of claim filed in court by the Toronto Cosmetic Clinic and Yazdanfar, she says she suffered “a marked decline in profitability and unusual increase in the number of patient cancellations for scheduled cosmetic surgeries” this fall.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

The drop in business prompted her to hire an investigative firm “to make inquiries within the cosmetic surgery industry and among competitors to determine if the business decline was related to or caused by competitors defaming (her),” the statement reads.

Yazdanfar did not respond to a request for an interview.

Her clinic’s manager directed questions to lawyer Michael Kestenberg who would not offer comment on the allegations.

Rice also declined to comment and referred calls to his lawyer Brian Butler.

“Unquestionably there will be a statement of defence,” Butler said. “Dr. Rice will defend himself.”

Rice isn’t the only physician to be targeted by Yazdanfar. At least one other doctor has received a letter from Yazdanfar’s lawyers ordering him to “cease and desist” from making critical remarks on the threat of legal action, the Star has learned.

On Oct. 17, just a month after Stryland’s death, investigator Francine Doyle attended a scheduled consultation for breast augmentation and liposuction with Rice at his Sheppard Ave. E. clinic, the statement of claim says.

Doyle, equipped with a hidden audio recording device, told Rice she had already had a consultation with Yazdanfar at the Cosmetic Clinic, the suit alleges.

Rice allegedly provided Doyle with different methods and types of breast implants and explained the differences between products offered by two companies. The suit alleges Rice told Doyle that one manufacturer won’t sell to Yazdanfar and the other would only sell her saline implants.

Yazdanfar said in her statement of claim that’s not true although one of the companies, Allergan Canada, confirmed to the Star last night it only sells breast implants to certified plastic surgeons.

The claim further alleges that when Doyle expressed hesitation to Rice regarding the safety of liposuction he made the following statements, “If anything were to happen to you here, we have everything here, a Royal College plastic surgeon, Royal College anesthesiologist, all RN certified nurses and everybody knows CPR …

It continues: “You’re not going to get anybody, who (is) more trained, than what you would get here in the office. Compared to (an) outside clinic, which doesn’t have an RN, a Royal College certified anesthesiologist. Something happens to you there, they are like, and ok what do I (do) right …”

The claim says the Toronto Cosmetic Clinic employs licensed anesthesiologists and “nurses registered with the college.

“Further, Dr. Yazdanfar at all times conducts the liposuction procedure in the presence of and with the assistance of a college certified anesthesiologist.”

Yazdanfar, a graduate of the University of Ottawa who doesn’t hold hospital privileges, said the words Rice spoke to Doyle were “slanderous” and “were calculated by him to disparage and injure the Cosmetic Clinic’s business and Dr. Yazdanfar’s professional reputation.”

Rice is a plastic surgeon, certified by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, and he has hospital privileges at North York General, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and Women’s College Hospital.

Following Stryland’s late September death, Yazdanfar and her clinic were the subject of front-page headlines and broadcast news reports focusing on the lack of regulation around cosmetic surgery in Ontario.

In response to mounting pressure from the media and the public after her death, the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons proposed tighter regulations for the cosmetic surgery industry.

The measures include restrictions against use of the phrase “cosmetic surgeon” for those who hold no surgical speciality and proposed inspections of private clinics where cosmetic procedures are done.

Two weeks ago, college officials said they are investigating 16 doctors performing high-risk cosmetic procedures in private clinics that could be a danger to the public because of concerns about their qualifications and training. They would not identify the physicians by name. posted by PInow.com Staff

Like his big-screen hero John McClane, John McTiernan doesn’t like being stuck in a building for very long. And for now, he won’t be.

A federal judge in Los Angeles has allowed the Die Hard director to remain free on bail while he appeals his guilty plea.

In April 2006, McTiernan, 56, copped to lying to the feds about his knowledge of Hollywood private investigator Anthony Pellicano’s illicit wiretapping operation.

McTiernan then tried to rescind the guilty plea for a bevy reasons: (1) he had been jetlagged at the time he was questioned by agents; (2) he was also suffering the side effects of some apparently potent sinus medication during the same Q&A session; and (3) he received some bad advice from his ex-lawyer.

U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer wasn’t buying it. Not only did the judge deny the motion, but, in McTiernan’s most scathing reviews since Last Action Hero,  Fischer ripped McTiernan for his lack of remorse for attempting to deceive investigators.

Fischer sentenced McTiernan to four months in prison in September and ordered him to pay a $100,000 fine.

“When he was sentenced, he made a motion to remain free on bond while the appeal is litigated. The judge granted that motion today,” Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, told E! Online.

As a result, McTiernan will not have to report to jail to begin his sentence on Jan. 15, as previously required. Instead, he was granted a $50,000 bond until the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules on his petition to withdraw his plea.

McTiernan helmed some of Hollywood’s biggest blockbusters in the 1980s and ’90s. Aside from Die Hard and Die Hard with a Vengence, his credits include Predator, The Hunt for Red October and the 1999 remake of The Thomas Crown Affair.

Should the appeal flame out, McTiernan would be the highest profile figure to face legal comeuppance from the Pellicano affair.

The so-called Private Eye to the Stars, Pellicano is awaiting trial on a 110-count indictment accusing him of racketeering and wire-fraud charges for allegedly gaining unauthorized access to law enforcement databases to dig up criminal histories and driving records of various individuals.

Authorities also claim the gumshoe led a conspiracy to record the phone conversations of such stars as Sylvester Stallone, Garry Shandling and Keith Carradine, among other Hollywood players, to give his clients a “tactical advatange” in their various court battles. posted by PInow.com Staff

A private investigator told police that a client who was trying to free her son from prison showed up at a meeting with a bag full of fake cash.

Jim Mabry’s tip to Clayton police led them to charge Marcia Grimsley, 59, with possession of counterfeit money. According to police, Grimsley was using her home computer to print imitation $100 bills.

Detectives tailed Grimsley after the meeting Nov. 9 and found thousands of smeared, yellowed mugs of Benjamin Franklin on fake $100 bills stashed in her car.

“She swore she’d just gotten it out of the bank,” said Clayton police Capt. Jon Gerrell.

No one answered the door at Grimsley’s home Wednesday afternoon. Her attorney, Barry Winston, said Grimsley maintains her innocence.

Grimsley captured headlines in 2004 after Virginia prosecutors charged her with conspiring with her son to hire a hit man to kill his wife. Grimsley, then a first-grade teacher at McGee’s Crossroads Elementary School outside Benson, is the widow of Joe Grimsley, a political heavyweight who twice served as a Cabinet member in Gov. Jim Hunt’s administration.

After Grimsley spent 10 months in jail, prosecutors let her off the hook because of her health problems. Grimsley promised to stay away from her daughter-in-law and grandchildren. Her son, David Ashford, is serving life in prison for his part in the murder-for-hire plot.

Grimsley has worked to free her son since her recent return to Johnston County.

For months, Grimsley has been stopping in the Johnston County Courthouse disguised in a wig and sunglasses, asking for help in her son’s case, according to several clerks.

She hired Mabry, of Kinston, in October to dig up evidence in the criminal case against her son. Mabry said the relationship began to sour when Grimsley asked him to pay people to recant the testimony that helped convict her son. He hoped she was just joking.

But on Nov. 9, Mabry said, she met him at a Cracker Barrel with a satchel full of fake cash.

“She had a fit trying to tell me it was real money,” Mabry said. “She’d been sitting up night after night, getting no sleep to print it.”

Mabry challenged her to prove a bill was real by using it at the Cracker Barrel. Grimsley then jumped in her car and left, Mabry said.

Mabry phoned Gerrell at the Clayton Police Department, worried that Grimsley would go on a shopping spree on her way home.

An officer’s question

Clayton police Detective John Coley spotted her car about 20 minutes later near her home on Fayetteville Street. He followed her and asked whether she had fake money in her car.

According to a search warrant, Grimsley showed him the fake cash, then brought him inside to see her equipment. There, Coley spotted three genuine $100 bills taped to a sheet of paper face down on a copying machine.

The Secret Service confiscated $218,000 in imitation cash, along with Grimsley’s computer equipment.

Federal charges are pending against her, said Robert Trumbo, resident agent in charge of the Secret Service in Raleigh. Grimsley could spend up to 20 years in prison if convicted of manufacturing counterfeit money.

Clayton police charged her last week with possessing the tools to make fake money. Grimsley posted a $5,000 bail and went home, according to court records. She paid in cash. posted by PInow.com Staff

CLINTON TOWNSHIP, Mich. – A Detroit man was arraigned at the 41-B
District Court on multiple charges, including manslaughter with a
vehicle after police said he hit a pedestrian with his car and dragged
his body nearly four miles.

Arthur Bishop Haynes Jr., 24, faces multiple charges including causing
an accident with a revoked or suspended license, manslaughter with a
vehicle and failure to stop at the scene of the accident that caused death.

Police said Haynes struck Joseph Candela, 53, of Harper Woods with his
car at Gratiot Avenue, near Metropolitan Parkway, in Clinton Township
Saturday morning and dragged him to a Fraser neighborhood near 13 Mile
and Kelly Roads.
Click Here

Police said Haynes was driving a Chevrolet Lumina, and fled the scene
of the accident.

Candela was dead when police arrived.

A tipster, who is also a private investigator, led police to arrest Haynes.
The unidentified tipster told Local 4 News that he followed a
suspicious-looking vehicle with a hole in the windshield to a Detroit
location and called the Michigan State Police.

The arraignment was an emotional scene on Monday as both the victim’s
and defendant’s families there.

“The family didn’t do anything. The young man made a mistake, but he
compounded it by leaving the scene of an accident. Somebody died­this
is serious,” said the victim’s brother Frank Candela.

Haynes entered a mute plea. When you stand mute, it means you concede
nothing, and it’s as if you entered a not guilty plea.

Haynes bond was set for $10,000 cash.

“He murdered somebody and carelessly drove away, and for
$10,000­that’s ridiculous,” said the victim’s brother Tony Candela.

Haynes could face up to 15 years in prison, if convicted.

The judge will set a preliminary examination date within the next two weeks.

In a case that speaks to enduring tensions in New Haven, a Hamden mother announced this week that she is filing suit against the city police department over the April death of her son.

Seven months ago, on Sat., Apr. 22, police officers found 26-year-old David Mills three miles up Dixwell Ave. from New Haven, raving about demons. When he started kicking and biting the Hamden officers, one shot him with a Taser, the controversial stun gun introduced this spring into the hands of 50 New Haven patrolmen. Mills died that night.

His mother’s lawsuit has re-ignited the debate over the ‘less-lethal’ weapons, which the New Haven Police Department (NHPD) adopted this year in hopes of replacing conventional firearms with less dangerous alternatives. But representatives of Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union have raised safety concerns, citing over 20 instances nationwide in which Tasers have played a role in suspects’ deaths.

Mills’ mother is suing both the city of Hamden and the sergeant who wielded the weapon: the former over the issue of instruction—whether the department adequately prepare its officers to wield Tasers—and the latter over the use of excessive force in subduing her son. A Hamden police department spokesman declined to comment on the lawsuit.

According to the Hamden medical examiner, Mills’ death was accidental, and the New Haven State’s Attorney has retroactively approved the degree of force used by the sergeant. But the debate over instruction echoes in New Haven, where 50 Tasers were introduced this summer in a pilot program to reduce, not increase, deadly incidents. “It’s a program designed just to see how well it works,” said Kay Codish, director of the New Haven Police Academy. “We’ll see if it makes sense for the entire department to have them.”

This summer, Codish said, the 50 officers equipped with Tasers—mostly supervisors in the 450-person department—received between eight and twelve hours of training on how, and more importantly when, to use the stun guns. “The training comes straight from the Taser Corporation,” Codish said, “but if we want to exceed their expectations, we can, and often do.” The department hopes to guide officers’ trigger fingers, offering them the education they need to avoid the kind of tragedy—and scrutiny—that arose in Hamden.

One solution may be to take a more proactive role in developing use-of-force policy. According to guidelines drawn up by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), the Washington-based criminal justice nonprofit brought in by New Haven to conduct an audit of the NHPD, “departments should not solely rely on a training curriculum provided by a CED manufacturer.” As the Hamden lawsuit progresses and the debate over Tasers unfolds, questions of training and standards may prove central. The Yale Herald.By Alex Hemmer

Contact Spy Center for the latest in Spy Surveillance products, Tasers, CCTV Security cameras, Security Products, Self Defense Products, Private Investigation Services, detective services and more.

1-800-743-2313  or (305)264-7878

 By Bill E. Branscum

Public speaking is often reported to be one of the most stressful experiences people find themselves required to face. Testifying could aptly be described as public speaking under pressure.

The ability to testify effectively is one of the most valuable skills an investigator can possess. There are very few aspects of the private investigator’s professional life that evoke the visceral response that accompanies being called to testify; perhaps no other aspect of job performance is as revealing about the investigator’s experience. It can be an intimidating experience for the neophyte and I have known many veteran investigators who anxiously dreaded the prospect.

Virtually everyone who has published material on this subject proffers opinions I disagree with, probably because so many of them simply regurgitate the mantra in everything previously written on the subject. For example, several sources advise that witnesses should confine their answers to “yes,” “no,” or “I don’t recall.” Although the whole world seems to preach that, it is abysmally poor advice.

By all means keep it short, the shorter the better. If a question can be answered “yes” or “no,” this is the perfect answer so long as it is fully responsive to the question and you should always admit that you don’t know or cannot recall when asked a question that you cannot answer. The problem is that when people contrive to answer all questions yes or no, they leave themselves no room to move.

Attorneys are argumentative by nature, that’s what they do. When it becomes obvious they have a witness who is determined to answer yes or no, they capitalize on that by baiting them into committing themselves to positions they should have qualified. This is especially true in deposition where you can be required to answer questions, and thereby commit yourself to answers, that you would never be asked in trial - particularly related to your opinions.

Remember, depositions are not even a little bit like trial testimony. Your attorney will object to questions which you will answer anyway. This is confusing to people new to the system.

In a deposition, although there is nobody to sustain or over rule the objection, you must always pause after a question is asked to give your attorney time to object for the record. The answer may not be admitted later once a judge has an opportunity to rule on it, but you will answer the question once the attorney has finished his objection unless specifically directed not to answer.

There are some things you will not answer and/or produce. If your attorney says he has directed the witness not to answer, you can expect fireworks. Fireworks is fine, they cannot hit you! You will not answer the question until a judge requires that you respond.

You should also be aware that the attitude and demeanor displayed by the attorneys involved in a deposition is often dramatically different than the way they present at trial. Attorneys may be deliberately rude, crude, obnoxious and offensive to see what effect it has, and what your vulnerabilities are, when they would never behave that way before the Court. I have read books filled with cute and clever responses that the authors claim to have used to put Clarence Darrow wannabe’s in their place - I cringe every time I see that sort of thing.

While I will agree that some attorneys can be remarkably stupid, I admit that I have seen more than a few make complete fools of themselves, and there is no doubt in my mind that many are not nearly as cute and clever as they think they are, none of that makes any difference. This is their game, they have all the advantages and even the least competent of them is likely to be far better at this than you are.

No matter what you encounter when called to testify, always be cordial and professional. When they rephrase your answer in an effort to put words in your mouth, you need not argue semantics as the stenographer’s record accurately reflects what you said. When they say, “so you’re saying . . .,” don’t argue, don’t get defensive and don’t get cute. You can always ask that the recorder simply read back what you said.

When the attorney launches into some rhetorical nonsense that is not a question, don’t fence with them - ignore it. If pushed to respond, say, “I’m sorry but I didn’t understand the question.”

I have seen it suggested that a witness should wait 30 seconds before answering any question; thirty seconds is an extraordinarily long time. Perhaps the better way to say it would be wait what seems like thirty seconds (more like five to ten) - the delay allows you to consider your answer and makes it difficult for the attorney to “get into a rhythm.”

In deposition you should always reflect upon a question for as long as necessary to formulate a response you are comfortable with. Keep in mind that whereas a transcript does not reflect pauses at all, a poorly worded response is recorded for posterity. Take your time.

I have seen it suggested that a person who intends to testify should wear blue. That sounds silly but it isn’t. You should wear blue for precisely the same reason that you would never wear purple or fluorescent pink. Colors do impact upon impression. Wear blue, grey, even black perhaps, but a blue that isn’t “loud” is probably the best choice.

If asked to explain something in deposition that could conceivably get you in trouble, DO NOT DEPEND ON YOUR CLIENT’S ATTORNEY FOR ADVICE. I promise you that this could be a serious mistake. Your client’s attorney has a responsibility to represent their interests to the exclusion of anyone else’s. Should you reach a point where your interests are inconsistent with theirs, the absolute best you can hope that the attorney will do for you is to make it clear that you need independent legal advice. Excuse yourself and seek competent legal advice.

This begs a serious question, “what do you do when you are facing questions related to an area where you recognize that you have exercised poor judgment, or undeniably did something wrong.” The answer is, “that depends.”

If the issue relates to a simple mistake, and by that I mean anything you cannot be arrested, fined, sued or lose your license over, you simply tell it like it is. If it can be argued that you did the right thing, your client’s attorney will argue it; otherwise, you are going to be exposed as a human being capable of making a mistake. You’ll get over it. Never, ever compound a simple mistake by lying or trying to cover it up.

If the issue involved is potentially serious, you must accept the fact that your role has changed. You need competent counsel and you must notify your insurance carrier immediately. None of us wants to hire an attorney and we all hope to keep from upsetting our insurance carriers, but do not yield to the temptation to “hope it will go away.”

I have seen recommendations to the effect that you should turn the matter over to your insurance company and rely upon them to defend your interests. In many cases, this is exactly what you should do, but bear in mind that they can only be counted on to defend your interests to the extent that your interests are consonant with their own. In some situations, you would do well to hire an attorney to represent you.

One thing does not change - never, ever, under any circumstances compound a bad situation by lying or trying to cover it up. I would encourage neophyte investigators and rookie law enforcement officers to get that concept firmly embedded in their minds.

In summation, I would say that investigators who make a good faith effort to do their job properly, and make no effort to twist, distort or otherwise misrepresent the facts, have no reason to fear being called to testify. Prepare yourself beforehand by thoroughly reviewing your case, take your time, tell the truth and everything will work out fine.