The Criminal Choice Behind Burglary

by Tom Adair author of the 2012 Crime Thriller The Scent of Fear.

As a former CSI I tried to understand how the criminal thinks. It's impossible to consider every single motivation but there are some generalities that may aid investigators in uncovering certain clues. As an author I find this insight very valuable because weaving this mindset into your storyline gives a sense of realism I think readers respond to. Everyone wants to understand motive. It's how we begin to make sense of things and challenge our world view. As a reader I want to understand the motivations of the killer, victim, cops, and others too. It helps me understand why they do what they do.

I've talked to a lot of victims that ask me a simple question; "why me?". It's not a dumb question. While it is true that some victim's may just be int he wrong place at the wrong time (like a shark attack), others increase their vulnerability to crime and criminals (like joining a gang). So it's helpful to consider what types of factors criminals may consider when choosing a victim. I thought it would be simpler to frame the discussion within the topic of burglary. In truth, some of the selection criteria can be applied to other crimes as well but let's just stick with burglary for now.

Burglars typically choose a place to burglarize for one of three reasons. These are broad categories with some cross over but they will serve for the discussion.

1. Inside knowledge (intelligence)
2. Vulnerability with reward
3. Opportunity (wrong place wrong time)

Inside Knowledge: 
In the military this is called intelligence. You'd be amazed how often a burglary can be tied to intelligence. The world war two warning of  "loose lips sink ships" actually works with criminals too. If criminals find out that you have things of value they may want to look for an opportunity to take them. I often say that many criminals want "easy" so you have to do your best to avoid helping them. Here are some of the biggest sources of "intelligence leaks" in the household.

1. Children. Children are the worst. Kids love to tell stories and brag to their friends. "We just got a new computer", "My mom just inherited a bunch of money", "I just got a brand new XBOX", etc. Even when talking to 'trusted' friends the conversation may be overheard by others.
2. Social Media. I am always amazed at people that tell the twitterverse that they are on vacation. They get on Facebook and say "Hey! We're a thousand miles away from our house and NO ONE is watching it". Many don't have the smarts to lie and say something like "Thanks God my brother is on leave from the Marine Corps and is watching the house with an attack dog!".
3. Visitors to the house. This can be anyone from your son's new "gangsta friend", ex-boyfriend, or repairmen. We often don't consider what a stranger might see in our homes like jewelry being left out, or even where we keep money (when you pay a serviceman).

Vulnerability with Reward:
I link these two together because the burglar is more likely to exploit a vulnerability if they know there is a reward for their risk. One of the biggest vulnerabilities is easy access to the residence or business. Some of the biggest culprits are;

1. Open garage doors
2. Open windows or unlocked doors (houses and vehicles)
3. Items of value with easy access (like a purse or wallet left on the front seat of your car)

Other things can include ladders propped up against houses (for easy access to second story windows that are usually left unlocked) or newspapers or fliers piled up outside (indicating you're on vacation). The reward/risk issue is equally important. Wanna guess a percentage of how many homes displaying signs like "Dangerous dog", "Video Surveillance Used" or "Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again" get burglarized compared to ones not displaying butterfly flags? Most criminals want "easy". Now all of this changes if your house is the only place to get what they want. So if you have a rare and valuable item (like the Hope Diamond) then the motivated criminal will look for a way to get it but, that is usually not the case. However, the higher the value of the item being sought, the more risk one may take to get it.

Opportunity:
This embodies the "wrong place, wrong time" meme. Obviously, the best way to avoid being in the wrong place is being more selective about the places we visit. I spend a fair amount of time in the back country of the Rocky Mountains. I feel much safer walking through the woods at midnight than an alley in many metropolitan cities. Some places are "wrong" for some folks no matter the time of day. Your characters may increase their risk of being attacked (mugged) because they are forced to go places they wouldn't normally choose. Maybe your PI has to go into a seedy bar or maybe somebody gets arrested and goes to jail for a few days. These exposures put them at increased risk. They may survive without incident but the tension is still there. From a criminal perspective it is literally the fly in the spider net. They simply wait for some unsuspecting victim to cross paths with them. The single attractive woman or suburban teenager with the iPod that has to ride a subway through the bad part of town at midnight.

Considering these factors when developing your plots, characters, and dialog will help explain the motivations of your characters and give a perspective for the reader when digesting the story. Remember, the motive has to align with the risk/reward calculus to be believable. A criminal won't rob a homeless man with a shopping cart full of old smelly clothes, empty liquor bottles, and a dead fish ;).

How to Write a "Bad" Expert Witness

by Tom Adair author of The Scent of Fear (2012)

One of the most interesting observations I have made in the courtroom is what passes for an "expert witness". In the United States, judges act as "gate keepers" for the admissibility of scientific evidence and expert testimony. The legalese can get pretty convoluted but in the end the judge can pretty much rule any way they want and let the jury decide how much "weight" they prescribe to the evidence or testimony. Also, in the US the burden of proof is on the prosecution and some judges give a bit more latitude to the defense in terms of whom they offer to testify for their client. I know of one case where an "expert" in entomology was allowed to provide expert testimony in a murder case. Their qualifications? They worked at the local zoo and raised insects to feed to the reptiles.

At times throughout my law enforcement career I have worked as an independent expert for both the prosecution and defense. Defense experts sometimes get a bad rap in my opinion just because they work for the accused. In truth, there are some really good experts out there whose only allegiance is to their analysis. However...there are some "experts" who may not follow a strict ethical code. When you come up against one of these folks it can get really frustrating. They may seem very credible to a lay jury, judge, and even the attorney unless someone is there to point out the inconsistencies. As a writer, understanding how these experts behave can add some real texture to your dialog and storyline.

One of the biggest tells is their tendency to set standards for others that they themselves do not meet. They love to make grandiose statements about how investigations or analyses should be conducted.  In one case an opposing expert said that a "good investigator" reviewed every single photo and every single piece of evidence in a homicide. He sat up on the witness stand with a semi-large photo book so I had the prosecutor ask him if those were the photos (provided by defense) that he had examined and then had him count them. Long story short he had reviewed only 10% of the photos taken at the crime scene. I then had him review the evidence log showing which items of evidence he had checked out for his examination. This time it was less than 5%. So in a few questions he confirmed though his own definition that he was a "bad" investigator and his testimony was largely ignored by the jury.

Sometimes it is not the expert but the attorney that lays the groundwork. They may attack the opposing expert for not having enough training, experience, or certifications. They basically set the bar very high for the opposing expert. However, they don't consider (or maybe they hope no one else will) whether their own expert meets those same standards. So you could have an attorney challenge an expert on the basis that they lack a board certification in a particular forensic science field. Of course, when their expert takes the stand and lacks the same qualifications the jury is left wondering just how seriously the attorney believed what they said.

In another case which happened about a decade ago an expert claimed that a new DNA process (and machine used to do the testing) were unreliable and shouldn't be considered by the court. The opposing attorney called the manufacturer to provide a rebuttal and imagine their surprise when they discovered that the expert in question had bought one of the units for their practice at the cost of over $80,000.00! They had even used it for examinations in other cases and never once mentioned their hesitation to use the technology when testifying in those cases. So the opposing attorney simply asked something like "why would you spend so much money on a technology that you claim is unreliable and then use it in other cases?"

It has been said that a courtroom is two thousand square feet surrounded by reality. In truth, each side is allowed to advocate their own position and interpretation of the evidence within certain rules and guidelines. This reality leave a lot of wiggle room though. A good attorney can convince a jury of the absolute truth of their claim. That is, until the opposing attorney takes the stage. Trials can seem like a roller coaster ride going up and down and upside down. Your experiences range from nausea to unmitigated joy. I thing that is the essence of good writing too. So if you are writing a courtroom scene don't just settle for a he said, she said type of exchange. Give your characters some secrets or positions they can't possibly maintain. After all, that's what the "experts" do.

Calling All CSIs!

Each post, I try to demystify some aspect of forensics or crime scene investigations as it relates to crime writers. Recently I was reminded that some writers are interested in things that I would otherwise regard as too mundane. It's a failure on my part to assume that writers understand those things I and others in law enforcement take for granted due to their ubiquity. So in that light I decided to explain one of the most common occurrences in a criminal investigation; the call out. Let me begin by saying that every agency can have it's own call out procedure and that procedure can change from one administration to the next. However, in my experience most call out procedures will relate to one of two CSI schedules. Both of these schedules, in and of themselves, are important for crime writers to recognize because they affect how your characters respond to scenes.

All CSIs work in shifts and the number of shifts is largely dependent on the size of the organization. Large organizations like the New York City or Denver Police Departments have 24 hour (or near) shift coverage. Typically these consist of three shifts; days (banker hours), mids (late afternoon to late evening), and graves (late evening to early morning). The specific hours vary from agency to agency but the key aspect of this type schedule is that CSIs generally work scenes only in their shift hours. So if your character is on days they won't be responding to a call at 10 PM. The popular CSI television series regularly stretches this reality as the main characters work the graves shift but always seem to be out working during the day too! That's a lot of overtime. CSIs can work over-shift if they have a major crime scnee but everyone has to sleep at some point so keep that in mind.

The second type of shift is a day shift with after hours on-call rotation. This is the type of schedule I worked throughout my career. So I would work during the day and then if I was needed at night I would get called out. There are limits to this system as well so there is generally another criminalist called the back-up who handles the next call out should one come in or if I needed extra help. With this type of schedule your character can be realistically working at any hour of the day across any shift. This gives you a bit more flexibility when writing scenes because you're not limited by the ending of a shift.

Now that we have that spelled out we need to look at the mechanism of a call out. CSIs are a finite resource. As such, their time and efforts are (should be) carefully regulated. In the real world an agency doesn't want to call out a CSI after hours unless their skills are really needed. You don't want them burning the midnight oil on a recovered stolen vehicle when there might be a homicide call out a few hours later.  In truth, I have been called out for some ridiculous tasks like putting a pair of underwear in a bag or making a photocopy (I kid you not) but most of the time the calls were legitimate. To prevent unwarranted call outs most CSIs can only be called out by their supervisors or detectives on scene. Patrol officers must request a CSI though their supervisor and that supervisor has to call the CSI supervisor. Here is where is gets interesting for you as a writer. Many times, the CSI is called out by someone who is not at the crime scene. This may seem counter-intuitive and it is but it is a function of reality. If the person calling out the CSI (Dispatcher, Sergeant, Bureau Chief, etc) is not on scene then the information your CSI gets will be second or third hand.

When a CSI gets a call we take notes of the pertinent information. What time did we get the call, who called, the crime scene location, what is known of the crime, etc. The dispatcher calling your CSI may not be handling the actual call so the CSI may get less than accurate information.  This is a really important fact because CSIs don't usually carry every piece of equipment they may need at a crime scene. It can be really frustrating to ask simple questions like "was the victim shot or stabbed?" and receive "you'll find out when you get there" type answers. If I got a call of say a gunshot homicide I would spend the commute time thinking about the various evidence I may encounter and what tasks I may need to perform. I built a picture in my mind based on previous scenes I've worked. So if I show up and it's a suicide by overdose I have to shift gears dramatically. Not the end of the world but, certainly a source of tension. Your character may wonder what else have they failed to tell me? 

Inaccurate information is more a result of fluid changes occurring during the interviewing of witnesses and cursory search of the crime scene, than incompetence. But as an author you can use that uncertainty and misinformation to your advantage. I wrote about a staged death scene in The Scent of Fear in which a homicide was made to look like an accident and the investigator saw what they wanted to see. Just as an author frames a scene or storyline, the initial call out frames the response from the CSI. That is why we like to ask a lot of questions before we ever turn the ignition and begin our response. A patrol officer may think a death is very suspicious (alternatively not suspicious) whereas a seasoned detective or CSI asking the right questions may realize they need more help or specialized equipment.

This may seem like a lot of inside baseball type stuff. I guess it is but, you may be able to use this insight to create conflict and tension between your characters while throwing a few curves to your reader. As a reader I like being kept a little off balance. I love being surprised and unsure of where the story will lead and I'm sure most of you do too. Just like real CSIs, we like to predict expectations based on the available information and when that information changes we have to quickly reshuffle our thoughts. That can be very frustrating to a real life CSI but it makes for great reading in my opinion.  


By Tom Adair
Author of The Scent of Fear and  Planning Your Career in Forensics a guide for prospective students and teachers. Tom also blogs at forensics4fiction.

Things that make you go hmmm...

By Tom Adair;
Author of The Scent of Fear

Criminalists are a strange bunch. We see the world differently than most others. Early in your career you make an effort to look for clues but after a while subtle things just seem to set off your radar. Such was the case the other day when I met an old colleague for lunch. He's a really good CSI as well as a Vietnam War veteran. We met at his favorite burger shop Smashburger (if you're not from Colorado you're missing out!) to get caught up on the grand kids, life, and "shop talk". While we were eating a guy dressed in fatigues walked in with a woman. There are a number of military bases in the area (as well as recruitment centers) so seeing a soldier is not uncommon. But there was something about this guy that grabbed my attention. Not having served in the military I have only a passing knowledge of uniform protocol. I casually began paying attention and noticed several things that seemed odd to me. First, his hair was longer than mine but still less than shoulder length. Some SPEC OPS soldiers are allowed longer hair and beards but it was more the length and style which seemed wrong. The camouflage pattern didn't seem right either. The elements were larger and showed no signs of sun fading. He was a "buck" Sergeant according to his arm patch but a tab below the patch labeled him as a sniper. Now I'm no expert but sniper's don't typically announce their abilities like that. A sniper is a target to the enemy so announcing your skill is kind of like putting a target on your head.

At some point I looked at my buddy and asked him to take a look. Without hesitation he said with a smirk "the guy in the 'sniper' uniform?" Turns out he had seen the guy too and done much of the same assessment. Obviously, we never approached the guy and said "what gives?" but both of us were convinced the guy was a fraud. Beyond the uniform the guy just didn't have that "look" in his eyes. You can see it in the eyes of many police and military. They are always aware of their surroundings, even if just giving a subtle glance around. Combat veterans have a very "hardened" look about them which I have a hard time describing but an easy time spotting. Not a mean look, or a paranoid darting of the eyes, just a look of extreme confidence mixed with a pinch of caution. We were both staring at this guy and he never once looked our way. It was like his radar was completely shut off.

I was reminded of this experience when I recently read yet another story of stolen valor where a man claimed to be a US Navy SEAL sniper. Apparently, this is a common tactic to meet women. Capt. Larry Bailey (former SEAL) famously stated "there were about 500 active duty SEALs during the Vietnam War and I've met all 20,000 of them". I don't know how these guys think they can fool the real SEALS. Seeing as how heroes like Brandon Webb trained many (if not most) of the SEAL snipers today it's a wonder how these con-men think they can get away with their lies.

SEAL segue aside, the point of this post is that CSIs and others are trained to notice small details which seem out of order. Even if we don't have an expert knowledge of a subject (like me and military uniforms) something still catches our eye. This is an important attribute to consider when you are writing a police procedural. Any of us can make mistakes and overlook something small but the more inconsistencies we see the more likely our inner alarm will sound. My friend and I silently took in the same details about the same guy without ever alerting the other.  We found nothing "suspicious" about the other patrons.

These "alarms" are often called "red flags" and are shaped by our life experiences and interests (hobbies, past occupations, etc). The training CSIs receive simply helps refine our ability to filter the information. Ultimately, it means that we're tougher to fool. So if your bad guy is staging the crime scene or simply offering a fake alibi you should consider how your character will evaluate that information. There is a saying among interrogators..."little lie, big lie" which simply means if suspects are willing to lie about small inconsequential things then maybe they are lying about bigger issues too. When auditing your scenes or developing your characters pay close attention to their interests and life experiences. How will these experiences shape the filtering of information in their environment? Are they lying about something they have great knowledge or experience with? Are they making up a story based on a false perception (like the plot to a movie or book in their home). Fooling a good detective or CSI will be difficult so you'll need to think about how to construct the lie or ruse in such a way that is plausible. Someone once said the best lies contain 80% truth. That may be accurate but a good detective or CSI will sniff out the other 20%.

Interview with Former CSI and Author Tom Adair

It’s Tom’s day to post, but he’s been shy to talk about his first novel, so I prompted him with a bunch of questions. If you haven’t heard, Tom released The Scent of Fear recently, and based on his background as an exceptional forensic scientist, it’s no surprise his novel is pretty special too. Here’s more in Tom’s own words:

LJ: Did a specific event or crime inspire this story?

Tom: They say that you should write what you know. While the story is fictional, many of the events are inspired by actual cases I’ve worked. I’ve changed many of the details but a number of colleagues have commented on the similarities. I think it adds tremendous realism to the story by keeping it within the property line of my experience. In some ways writing this novel was therapeutic too. The crimes I saw in my career were not the types of things you can talk about at the dinner table. My family knew what I did but they never had a clear picture. It was my way of protecting them from the evils I saw. In The Scent of Fear I had the opportunity to shed some baggage I had been holding on to. It gave me permission to unburden myself.

LJ: Who is your protagonist modeled after? Because you’ve had the same career as your protag, is it difficult to keep her actions/thoughts distinctly separate from yours?
Tom: I don’t want them to be separate. Put simply, she’s the girl next door that can kick in the door. Sarah Richards could be compared to so many young professional self confident women in law enforcement. I love the depth her character offers me as a writer. Sarah has a wonderful mix of strength and vulnerability I couldn’t create with a male protagonist. She is young and impulsive and that makes for some hairy situations she finds herself in, but that can be said of so many young professionals. Sarah was created as a franchise character and I can’t wait to see how she develops with age and experience (just as I did).

LJ: Does the novel have a theme or message you want the reader to come away with?
Tom: Be fearless! So many of us let fear run our lives and it usually makes us miserable. Fear also keeps us from reaching our full potential. Sarah has fears but she must rely on her inner strength and morality to persevere (physically and spiritually). That is her story. In the end she only has herself to rely upon (metaphorically speaking; that was not a spoiler).

LJ: What else do you want readers to know about this story?
Tom: On a serious level I wanted to give readers a peek behind the curtain of crime. Evil does exist in our world. I’ve met it, spoken to it, even been threatened by it. We tell our children that monsters exist only in bedtime stories but they don’t. Monsters are out there; among us. Be prepared to meet them.

LJ: At what point in your law enforcement career did you realize you wanted to write instead? What was it like to make the transition?
Tom: The novel (trilogy) has been rolling around in my head for over a decade but I always figured I’d just write it when I retired. I never thought that day would come so quickly. I guess, like a lot of folks in that business, I hit a saturation point. I never saw it coming. Apparently the dark events in our lives can ferment until our soul can bear them no longer. I just wanted out. The problem was that my particular skill set is not very applicable in the civilian world. I had been a technical writer, not a fiction writer but it seemed like the right fit. Looking back I think it was fate.

LJ: Are you able to use specific incidents from your career in your fiction?
Tom: I’ve heard the term faction thrown around and I like it. A blend of fiction and reality. I’m very careful not to betray and confidences or divulge anything that might complicate any open investigations but that still leaves me a broad range of experiences to tap into.


LJ: What’s next for you? Are you working on another novel?
Tom: The Scent of Fear is the first in a trilogy and I am busy working on the second portion of the story which delves deeper into the motives of the serial sniper. I don’t want to give away too much but just as in The Scent of Fear there is a parallel story line of murder. I’ve always liked stories in which the protagonist must juggle different problems. I have to be careful not to overwhelm the reader with minutiae but real CSIs have to deal with many professional and personal distractions so why should our characters be much different?

FYI, Amazon Prime members can now check out The Scent of Fear free!