BlogguideInvestigation file case assignment

Hits: 0

Investigation file case assignment  Instructions

Investigation file case assignment  In order to prepare for this case study, you will need to review the section titled “From the Case File: The Investigation of the Washington, D.C., Beltway Snipers” in your textbook on pages 1–5. In your case study response, you will address the following:

• Illustrate the role and function of detectives in the Washington, D.C., Beltway Sniper case as they would have occurred in the political era, the reform era, and for the community problem-solving era.
• Explain the four stages of the reactive investigation process related to the Beltway Sniper case.
• In just about any criminal investigation, there are mental errors (i.e., confirmation bias, selective information processing, and overconfidence bias), and the Beltway Sniper case is no different. Determine how mental errors are evident in this case.
• In this unit, you learned the three potential problems with evidence in criminal investigations. What are the three problems with evidence in this case? Explain.

Each section of your case study must be clearly labeled using the following section headings:

• Policing Eras
• Reactive Investigation Process
• Mental Errors
• Problems

Your case study must be at least three pages in length, not counting the cover page and reference page. The only source you need to cite for this case study is your textbook. APA guidelines for formatting, quoting, paraphrasing, citing, and listing of sources are to be followed.

From the Case File The Investigation of the Washington, D.C., Beltway Snipers

The manhunt began the night of October 2, 2002, when James Martin was shot dead in the parking lot of a store in Wheaton, Maryland. It ended twenty-one days and twelve more victims later with the arrest of John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo at a highway rest stop outside of Washington, D.C.

For the first seven shootings, which occurred October 2 through October 4, the police had few clues. No one actually saw the shooter, but witnesses reported seeing a white van or white box truck in the area after several of the shootings. In one of the incidents, a witness told the police he saw a dark-colored Chevrolet Caprice driving away from the scene with its lights off. The importance of the Caprice, however, was drowned out by the continued sightings of the white van and white truck. By October 12 the police and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had obtained enough information from witnesses to produce pictures of the van and truck believed to be involved in the shootings, which they released to the media. The police checked and searched hundreds of white vans and trucks, looking for anything suspicious they could link to the shootings. They found nothing.

Although the hunt for the vehicle was hitting a dead-end, the sniper’s modus operandi (MO) had become clear: All the victims were shot with the same ammunition—a .223-caliber bullet, popular with hunters, competitive shooters, and the military. Given the distance from which many of the victims were shot, the police also suspected the sniper had some skill and training as a marksman. Most of the shootings were concentrated in the Montgomery County area of Maryland, suggesting that the killer lived in that area. There was also a strong possibility the killer was watching developments in the investigation on television and altering his activities based on this. For example, when Montgomery County police chief Charles Moose reassured parents that their children were safe, the sniper’s next victim was a thirteen-year-old boy shot and critically wounded while arriving at school. After this shooting the police found a tarot “death” card and a spent shell casing in some matted grass near the school. On the back of the card was a message that read, “Dear Policeman, I am God.” Along with the card was a note stating the police should not reveal the message to the media. Nevertheless, the media found out and publicized the message. The deadly drama was intensifying.

On October 14 a woman in the parking lot of a store in Falls Church, Virginia, was shot. Once again several witnesses told the police they had seen a white van driving away after the gunshots. One witness stated the shooter was driving a cream-colored Chevrolet Astro van with a burned-out left taillight and a chrome ladder rack on its roof. Better yet, the witness also told the police he had seen the shooter and his gun. The gun was described as an AK-47, and the witness said the shooter had dark skin. As in a previous incident, another witness reported seeing a dark-colored Chevy or Chrysler leaving the store parking lot after the shooting. Once again, the police focused on the more specific white van. The police immediately shut down the nearby interstate and set up roadblocks and checkpoints in an attempt to catch the fleeing killer. Traffic around the Washington, D.C., area was backed up for miles as the police searched dozens upon dozens of white vans as they moved through the roadblocks. Again, the police found nothing. The roadblock tactic was used twice more, after two more shootings. None of these roadblocks were helpful in the investigation, and at the time the police reasoned the shooter was familiar enough with the area to evade them by using side roads. After additional questioning of the witness who provided the detailed information about the van, the shooter, and his gun, the police recovered security surveillance video that showed the witness was actually inside the store when the shooting occurred. He had just made up the information, and he was subsequently charged with providing false information to the police. More frustration for the police, and they were still not even close to identifying the killer.

On October 17 an operator at the police tip line created for the investigation received a telephone call from an individual who stated he was the sniper. He spoke broken English and had an unidentifiable accent. The caller was angry because he had been unable to get through to the police earlier and was hung up on even though he said he was God. The police tip line had received hundreds of apparently bogus calls during which the caller claimed to be God—a reference to the message on the tarot card found after the shooting at the school. Investigation file case assignment

Now, in an effort to get the police to take him seriously, the sniper provided a clue, a big one, to the tip line operator. The caller told the operator that the police should “look to Montgomery” and they would then realize he was not joking. The operator reported the phone call to her supervisors. The police were initially unsure as to what the message meant, or even if it was valid.

The next day in Ashland, Virginia, at 8:00 p.m., a man was fatally shot in a restaurant parking lot. When searching the area after the shooting, the police found a handwritten note tacked to a tree in the nearby woods. In the letter the sniper railed about his previous attempts to communicate unsuccessfully with the police. It identified the phone numbers he had called and the names of the persons he had spoken to on the six previous calls to the police. It also made reference to a phone call he made to a “Priest in ashland.” The sniper made a demand for $10 million to be deposited on a particular credit card and provided the card number. If the transaction was not completed, the sniper wrote, more people would be killed. The letter concluded with the statement “Word is Bond,” and five stars were drawn on the paper.1

The note contained many clues. When police traced the credit card identified in the note, they discovered it had been reported stolen in Arizona months earlier. The victim first realized the card was stolen from her when the bank contacted her about a gasoline purchase in Tacoma, Washington. The purchase was fraudulent and the account was closed. The writing style of the note was also of significance. It appeared to match the speaking style of the individual who had made the earlier phone call to the police tip line. The reference to the call made to the “Priest in ashland” was also intriguing. Further investigation into this led investigators to a priest at St. Ann’s Church in Ashland, Virginia. When questioned by investigators, he told them that on October 18 he had received a phone call from someone who stated he was God and was the sniper. The caller said he was calling because he had not been able to get through to the police. The priest also told the police the caller made reference to a crime that had occurred recently in Montgomery, Alabama. The priest said he thought it was just a prank call and did not report it authorities. With this information, particularly the reference to the shooting in Montgomery, the earlier phone call reference to Montgomery now made sense. The FBI immediately contacted the police department in Montgomery and learned about a robbery/homicide that had occurred there just a few weeks previously, on September 21. The police in Montgomery explained that two clerks who worked at a liquor store were shot by a black man approximately twenty years old. One of the clerks was killed; the other injured. Although the killer had not been apprehended, a composite sketch of the suspect had been developed and a fingerprint recovered from a gun catalogue the suspect was looking at just prior to the robbery. The Montgomery police explained that when they ran the print through their fingerprint database, they did not get a hit. Investigation file case assignment

On October 20 the fingerprint recovered from the crime scene in Montgomery was examined using the FBI’s fingerprint system. This time there was a hit: The fingerprint belonged to an individual by the name of Lee Boyd Malvo. His fingerprint was on file because he was a Jamaican citizen in the United States illegally. The pieces were beginning to come together. Investigators speculated that the five stars drawn on the cover page of the note left at the restaurant shooting scene were related to the Jamaican band Five Stars. “Word is Bond” were lyrics to a song sung by the band. The possible Jamaican connection also fit with the style of English noted in the previous phone call and letter to the police. Additional information on Malvo led investigators to Washington State, the same place where the stolen credit card identified in the note had been used to purchase gasoline. At about this same time, the police tip line received a call from a resident of Tacoma who reported that a man named Muhammad and another man with the nickname “Sniper” used to live in Tacoma and had, on occasion, used a tree stump in their backyard for shooting practice. Once investigators were in Tacoma, the link between Malvo and an individual by the name of John Muhammad was confirmed. They also learned Muhammad had previously served in the military.

On October 21 the sniper called the police to reiterate his demands. The police were ready . . . or so they thought. The call made by the suspect was traced to a public telephone at a gas station near Richmond, Virginia. Shortly after the call was received, the police converged on the telephone and found a white van parked next to it. Two Hispanic men were pulled from the van and arrested. Headlines immediately followed: “Two Men in Custody in Sniper Hunt.”2 There was only one problem: The men were not Malvo and Muhammad. The two individuals in the van were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and had nothing to do with the shootings. And, as coincidence would have it, they were driving a white van. If the sniper had used that phone, he got away before the police arrived. That afternoon Chief Moose provided a message to the sniper through the media: “The person you called could not hear everything you said. The audio was unclear and we want to get it right. Call us back so that we can clearly understand.” 3

On the morning of October 22, the snipers claimed their thirteenth victim when Conrad Johnson, a city bus driver in Silver Spring, Maryland, was shot and killed as he exited his bus. A note found in a nearby park reiterated the demand for $10 million. As the police were handling this latest shooting, investigators were busy developing information in Washington State. They confirmed Malvo and Muhammad had used to live together in a house in Tacoma and had used a tree stump in the backyard for target practice with a high-powered rifle. Police conducted a search of the location and removed a large stump that contained bullet fragments. The search of the outside of the house and the removal of the stump by investigators were broadcast live on national television. Investigators obtained handwriting samples of Malvo from the high school he had attended in Tacoma.

Reasonably certain now that Malvo and Muhammad were responsible for the sniper shootings, investigators requested that police from area departments query their databases for any noted police contact with either suspect. It was discovered that the day after the boy was shot outside his school, Baltimore police had had contact with Muhammad when they found him asleep in his car in a parking lot outside a Subway sandwich shop. The police had woken him and told him to be on his way. It was noted in the police computer that Muhammad was driving a blue 1990 Chevrolet Caprice with a New Jersey license plate, number NDA21Z. After this license plate number was discovered, police from area departments were asked once again to query their databases for any recorded check of the plates. These checks revealed that between October 2 and October 23, the police had seen the Caprice and checked the license plate number at least twelve times. As the car was not stolen and the occupants were not wanted for any crimes, no additional investigations of the vehicle or its occupants had been conducted. Investigation file case assignment

At approximately 9:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 23, Chief Moose revealed on national television that John Muhammad, forty-one, and Lee Boyd Malvo, seventeen, were wanted in connection with the sniper shootings. He stated these individuals had last been seen driving a blue 1990 Chevrolet Caprice and provided the license plate number. Four hours later the police received a telephone call from a truck driver who said he was currently at a rest stop off the interstate near Frederick, Maryland, and the car they were looking for was parked there. A police tactical unit arrived shortly thereafter and found Malvo and Muhammad asleep in the car. They were arrested without incident. A Bushmaster XM15 rifle was found in the car, along with a pair of two-way radios, two handguns, a Sony laptop computer, a single .223- caliber cartridge, and fake IDs, among other items. Malvo and Muhammad appeared to have been living out of their vehicle. There was a notch cut in the back of the trunk of the car from which the shots were probably fired. The police had the snipers.

Photo 1.1 Witnesses to the early shootings in the D.C. sniper case told the police they thought the shooter was driving a white van. The police alerted the public to this information, and witnesses at subsequent shootings also reported seeing a white van. As a result, the search was on for a white van. But the snipers never used such a vehicle. They were driving a blue four-door 1990 Chevrolet Caprice, pictured here.FBI

Photo 1.2 Notice how the trunk of the vehicle was configured so that a person could lie in it. Also observe the notch cut out of the trim to accommodate the barrel of a rifle.

FBI

Further investigation revealed Malvo and Muhammad were responsible for at least seven other shootings in the Washington, D.C., area; Washington State; Arizona; and Louisiana. The two were tried and convicted of their crimes in Virginia and Maryland. Muhammad was sentenced to death, Malvo to multiple life sentences without parole. Muhammad was executed in Virginia by lethal injection in 2009. Investigation file case assignment

Case Considerations and Points for Discussion

1. In this investigation one piece of evidence led to another until investigators identified and apprehended the killers. In your assessment, what was the most important development in the investigation?
2. In just about any criminal investigation there are difficulties with the evidence, and this investigation was no different. What was the most significant lesson to be learned by investigators in this case? Why?
3. What do you think was the most significant mistake made by the perpetrators? Why?

Also: Watch the four-part YouTube video “Final Report—the DC Sniper” for an excellent discussion of the investigation and the difficulties encountered by the investigators. Investigation file case assignment