Crucial Evidence: Vegas Shooting Brother Interview

This guy is legit.  His body language is spot on, and he is not lying.

He establishes that the brother was a high roller, a professional gambler, and that everyone at the hotels and casinos knew him.  Problem: there is no video footage of Stephen anywhere gambling.  Do a search and prove me wrong.

This, my friends is impossible.  If you gamble in Vegas, there are tons of footage of your every move.

This piece of the puzzle is the most crucial at this point in establishing many enormously important points.  

Now, we will walk through some Logic-Tight if-then-else type statements that establishes a few shocking conclusions.

• If there is no video footage of Stephen Paddock, then, Stephen Paddock was never in Vegas.  Think clearly about that point.  It is an indisputable syllogism.
• If Stephen Paddock was in Vegas, and there is no video footage of him at the casinos, then someone must have removed these videos.

Exhibits

There is no YouTube video footage of Stephen Paddock at any casinos other than alleged surveillance footage back in 2011:

There are only two possible conclusions from this:

• Stephen Paddock was never in a Vegas casino since 2011
• YouTube and Google removed all videos of Paddock since 2011 within casinos

Both of these conclusions are air-tight with logic consistently applied to what we know for sure.

Thus, taking each conclusion to its logical limit, we will discuss the implications of both conclusions.

Conclusion 1: Stephen Paddock was never in a Vegas casino since 2011

Implications:

• investigators are lying
• investigators are covering up evidence for some unknown reason
• investigators are being fed false evidence and false information
• investigators are being told to lie for national security reasons

Conclusion 2: YouTube and Google removed all videos of Paddock since 2011 within casinos

Implications:

• Someone at Google and YouTube removed the videos of Stephen Paddock
• The person removing the videos did so under two scenarios:
• He was ordered to remove the videos by management
• He hacked the system and destroyed the videos

So, the above points are not disputable.  Try if you will.

Fundamentals of Analysis

Fundamentals of Analysis

What is the essence of analysis?  It is categories.  It is like biological organization into animal and plant kingdoms.  Perhaps it can be vertebrates or invertebrates.  Under each category are subcategories that do not cross fit into both categories.  It is mutual exclusivity that defines analysis.  Break things into categorical pieces, and ensure that the pieces within a level are mutual exclusive categories.  This is the process of analysis. 

We Have a Fire

Let us take a concrete example and perform some analysis.  We have a fire.  A building burned down.  What is required for a fire?  Three things: (1) Oxygen, (2) Fuel, and (3) Sufficient Heat.  This is called an AND gate in logic, which means, all three factors must be present, or Fire does not exist.  Take away any one of these three, and there is no fire.  So, let us ask the question.  Was there sufficient oxygen?  Probably so, unless we were under laboratory conditions where someone removed oxygen, we can safely assume there was a 20% concentration in the air.  Was there fuel?  What can be fuel to a fire?  Wood, gasoline, cloth, dust, organic material, etc.  One must identify the fuel.  What else do we need?  We need a source of heat.  What could be a source of heat to ignite the Fuel?  Cigarette lighter, stove, matches, hot wire from a shorted electrical circuit, pilot light from a gas stove, flint material rubbed together to produce a spark if near gasoline.  Thus, to establish the cause of the fire, one must identify the three things necessary to make the fire, and clearly connect them to the physical manifestation of the three requirements.  What gave oxygen?  Air.  What gave fuel?  Gasoline.  What gave heat?  A hot stove.  Congratulations!  You have performed basic cause and effect, and have identified by analysis the cause of the fire.

Murder Scene

Let’s use an example with identifying a suspect for a crime.  There is a dead man on the floor of a hotel on the second floor.  The dead man is 230 pounds, muscular, and 29 years old.  His arm is broken, and his face is smashed in.  The door bolt is broken and the door handle on the bathroom door is broken off.

Who could have done this?  Let us look at the first thing: Skill.  Who would have the skills to do this?  Who can break off a door bolt?  A strong man - perhaps a muscular man.  Could it be a school girl?  No.  A teenage 11 year old boy?  No.  An 80 year old woman?  No.  A 70 year old man?  No.  To overcome and kill a man 230 pounds and muscular, what would he look like?  Probably muscular, very strong, not a skinny pimply faced teenager.  Probably a trained fighter, boxer, or martial artist.  

So, we have established categories above, and excluded a lot of options in the analysis.  Male, 20-35 years old, muscular, fighting skills, strong as hell, strong hands.  So, this eliminates a lot of people so that one can focus on the profile of the suspect.  You do not strip search a 100 year old woman in a nursing home to see if she was the suspect, even if she hated the dead man and said she wanted to kill him.  She just could not have done the job.  Maybe hired for the job, but not performed the job.  

Rapid Heart Pulse

What is the cause of a rapid heart pulse?  Adrenaline causes the heart to pump faster.  Why does the heart pump faster?  What does the heart do?  It mainly provides oxygen to all things in the body.  Thus, when the heart beats fast, something in the body is asking for more oxygen.  When you run fast, your muscles need more oxygen, and secrete chemicals and hormones to signal the need for oxygen, which signals an increase in adrenaline, which raises the heart rate.   Something is lacking oxygen, and demands action from the heart to provide the extra oxygen by pumping faster.  If you are resting in your bed and your heart is racing, what does this mean?  Something is asking for oxygen.  Perhaps your lungs are clogged from pneumonia and your body is not getting enough oxygen from a regular heart rate, and thus, the system demands faster pulse to make up for the deficiency.  Perhaps you are scared to death of something, and your body signals with chemicals and hormones to prepare for Fight or Flight, which raises the heart rate to prepare for very intense muscle movement for a Fight or Flight.  

///

What is the takeaway?  Ask yourself “What are the necessary conditions for this to have happened?”  “What could have caused each one of these conditions?”  Write down all the conditions, and trace backward to a cause of the condition.  Make a picture of cause and effect.

///

Freddy Martini  

CIA High Priest, Richards Heuer

CIA High Priest, Richards Heuer

The book

He wrote the authoritative book on the subject, “The Psychology of Intelligence Analysis.”  You can download the PDF version of the book free from the CIA, here.

My specialty is Engineering Technical Analysis, and I have learned a lot from this book on Intelligence Analysis.  Analysis as a subject can be cross-functional from many areas of study and practice.

The CIA developed several analytical techniques because they make policy recommendations to places like the military and to executives in the government, and even Congress.  These recommendations can have serious consequences – costly consequences if they are wrong.  So, the CIA has a high interest in analytical techniques that are very reliable.  Theories and policies here cost dollars and cents – and lives in many cases.

Just Enough Information (Then stop!)

With the advent of large databases, what are we to do with them?  Actually, nothing.  Information is not important unless it drives a decision.  Driving a decision takes much less information that one would think.  Furthermore, using all information available makes the decision-making process more error prone when the analyst moves past the critical amount of sufficient information.  More data is bad – very bad.

Some people call it Analysis Paralysis.  Too much data will overwhelm your mental faculties and you will begin to make serious errors in judgment, or fail to act completely.

Disprove Everything

If you can recall our discussion on science here, you will know that Karl Popper told us that we cannot prove anything in science; we can only disprove things in science.  Heuer created a straight-forward tool to use this concept in practice call the “Analysis of Competing Hypotheses.”  You can use the tool yourself with a simple piece of paper or a spreadsheet.  See how to do it from the CIA website, here.

The idea is that evidence can support almost an infinite amount of hypotheses, thus, if your theory has “supporting evidence,” so does perhaps 10 others using the same evidence.  What we are doing here is trying to list as many hypotheses that we think are viable, and then we seek to disprove every one of them.  Are you a real scientist?  Are you a fake?  This separates the men from the mice.  Show me how many hypotheses you have disproven in your path to your favorite hypothesis.  What evidence will disprove your hypothesis?  If this is not stated clearly, you are a fake, or at the least, you do shoddy, inferior work.

Implications for Science

We are told that the Scientific Method is what scientists use.  However, a core piece of the puzzle is evidence that will disprove a hypothesis.  Every “scientific” endeavor must define what evidence will disprove the theories.

Next time you hear someone talking about “science,” ask them to clearly define what evidence will disprove their theories.  There is no excuse, since Heuer has clearly defined the procedure and made it easy for all of us to do with his magisterial Analysis of Competing Hypotheses.

Get the book and use the techniques.

///

Freddy Martini

Analysis Notes: Excerpts: Richards Heuer's "Psychology of Intelligence Analysis"

Excerpts from Richards Heuer’s “Psychology of Intelligence Analysis”

A few perhaps counter-intuitive quotes from Richards Heuer, author of “The Psychology of Intelligence Analysis,” whose title could just as well have been, “The Psychology of Analysis.”

The book is available free in PDF format from the CIA here:

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence-analysis/index.html

Scientists, engineers, and other analytically driven professionals should heed the warnings that Heuer brings to our attention in his book.

My comments are in red.

• The question is not whether one’s prior assumptions and expectations influence analysis, but only whether this influence is made explicit or remains implicit. The distinction appears to be important. In research to determine how physicians make medical diagnoses, the doctors who comprised the test subjects were asked to describe their analytical strategies.  Those who stressed thorough collection of data as their principal analytical method were significantly less accurate in their diagnoses than those who described themselves as following other analytical strategies such as identifying and testing hypotheses.  Moreover, the collection of additional data through greater thoroughness in the medical history and physical examination did not lead to increased diagnostic accuracy (p. 41)

If you stress the collection of data, you have a higher chance of failure.  This may be shocking to hard core data-driven people.  To increase the chances of success, one must develop structured methods and analytical strategies.  More data will not help without structured analysis!  Furthermore, structured analysis will reveal whether or not more data is just a waste of time and resources.

• Analysts should keep a record of unexpected events and think hard about what they might mean, not disregard them or explain them away.  It is important to consider whether these surprises, however small, are consistent with some alternative hypothesis. One unexpected event may be easy to disregard, but a pattern of surprises may be the first clue that your understanding of what is happening requires some adjustment, is at best incomplete, and may be quite wrong.  (p. 74)

When something unexpected happens that does not fit into the analyst’s working model, one must evaluate whether or not the model needs updating.  One should always pay close attention to the unexpected that challenges the working model.

• Tactical indicators are specific reports of preparations or intent to initiate hostile action or, in the recent Indian case, reports of preparations for a nuclear test. Ben-Zvi found that whenever strategic assumptions and tactical indicators of impending attack converged, an immediate threat was perceived and appropriate precautionary measures were taken.  When discrepancies existed between tactical indicators and strategic assumptions in the five cases Ben-Zvi analyzed, the strategic assumptions always prevailed, and they were never reevaluated in the light of the increasing flow of contradictory information. Ben-Zvi concludes that tactical indicators should be given increased weight in the decision making process. At a minimum, the emergence of tactical indicators that contradict our strategic assumption should trigger a higher level of intelligence alert.  It may indicate that a bigger surprise is on the way. (p. 74-75)

The emergence of evidence that contradicts the working model may indicate that a big surprise is on the way.

• New ideas are, by definition, unconventional, and therefore likely to be suppressed, either consciously or unconsciously, unless they are born in a secure and protected environment. Critical judgment should be suspended until after the idea-generation stage of analysis has been completed. A series of ideas should be written down and then evaluated later. This applies to idea searching by individuals as well as brainstorming in a group. Get all the ideas out on the table before evaluating any of them.  (p. 77)

Established ideas facilitate speed of development.  However, one must constantly guard against the dismissal of new ideas simply because they do not fit the model.  Analysts must always be open to challenging the established model.

• Analysis identifies and emphasizes the few items of evidence or assumptions that have the greatest diagnostic value in judging the relative likelihood of the alternative hypotheses. In conventional intuitive analysis, the fact that key evidence may also be consistent with alternative hypotheses is rarely considered explicitly and often ignored.  (p. 108)

Data is useful only insofar as it has diagnostic value.  Data without diagnostic value is usually worthless to the problem at hand.  The collection of “more data” can often be a waste of time and resources if it serves no purpose to drive the analysis.

• The most probable hypothesis is usually the one with the least evidence against it, not the one with the most evidence for it. Conventional analysis generally entails looking for evidence to confirm a favored hypothesis.  (p. 108)

Evidence does not prove any hypothesis, according to our best understanding of the Philosophy of Science.  Evidence can only disprove a hypothesis.  Thus, the generation of multiple hypotheses is crucial in any analytical exercise because of the dangerous tendency to settle upon the first hypothesis that the evidence seems to confirm.  Heuer’s Analysis of Competing Hypothesis method was invented to address this issue.

• A familiar form of this error is the single, vivid case that outweighs a much larger body of statistical evidence or conclusions reached by abstract reasoning. When a potential car buyer overhears a stranger complaining about how his Volvo turned out to be a lemon, this may have as much impact on the potential buyer’s thinking as statistics in Consumer Reports on the average annual repair costs for foreign-made cars. If the personal testimony comes from the potential buyer’s brother or close friend, it will probably be given even more weight. Yet the logical status of this new information is to increase by one the sample on which the Consumer Reports statistics were based; the personal experience of a single Volvo owner has little evidential value.  (p. 117)

Things that are very close and personal to us are sometimes the very things that cloud our thinking when we do analysis. 

• People expect patterned events to look patterned, and random events to look random, but this is not the case. Random events often look patterned. The random process of flipping a coin six times may result in six consecutive heads. Of the 32 possible sequences resulting from six coin flips, few actually look “random.”  This is because randomness is a property of the process that generates the data that are produced.  Randomness may in some cases be demonstrated by scientific (statistical) analysis. However, events will almost never be perceived intuitively as being random; one can find an apparent pattern in almost any set of data or create a coherent narrative from any set of events.  (p. 130)

Sometimes we see patterns in random events because our brains are designed to look for patterns.  This is a common analytical pitfall.

• Some research in paleobiology seems to illustrate the same tendency.  A group of paleobiologists has developed a computer program to simulate evolutionary changes in animal species over time. But the transitions from one time period to the next are not determined by natural selection or any other regular process: they are determined by computer-generated random numbers. The patterns produced by this program are similar to the patterns in nature that paleobiologists have been trying to understand.  Hypothetical evolutionary events that seem, intuitively, to have a strong pattern were, in fact, generated by random processes.  (p. 130)

Even field experts can see patterns where there are none, because they are looking for patterns.  This is not to say that patterns do not exist, but to remind us to ask the question as to whether or not we are forcing patterns upon the data where there are none.

National Security Notes: Steve Jobs’ FBI File

Last week, news came out with details of the FBI files used in a background check of Steve Jobs.  Apparently, the government can release these files after the subject dies, with the exception of certain redacted text sections preserving the identity of some of the other subjects within the investigation or participating officers.

Notes on the Released File

Wired posted an article with the entire file in PDF format here.  The PDF is 191 pages long.  Analytical types may find this very interesting.

The Letter that authorized the investigation is included in PDF Page 160.  This letter was from the Director of the FBI and is dated February 21, 1991.  According to the FBI website, the Director in 1991 was William S. Sessions.  This was almost 21 years ago. 

President Bush I was considering appointing Jobs to a position on the President’s Export Council.  The PEC website (here) has the following stated purpose:

The President's Export Council serves as the principal national advisory committee on international trade. The Council advises the President of government policies and programs that affect U.S. trade performance; promotes export expansion; and provides a forum for discussing and resolving trade-related problems among the business, industrial, agricultural, labor, and government sectors.

The first paragraph of the FBI Director's letter is as follows:

Bureau has been requested to conduct a Level III background investigation of Mr. Jobs for a presidential appointment to the President's Export council, which does not require Senate confirmation.

This seems straightforward enough.  The second and third paragraphs describe some of the procedural requirements of the investigating officers:

Field Offices are reminded that the investigative status of a background investigation (BI), all deadlines and the position for which the appointee is being considered shall not be disclosed to any interviewees. If during the course of· the investigation, interviewees provide the nature of the position, that information is not to be further divulged outside the FBI.  Inquiries by interviewees concerning the nature of the position are to be handled as set forth in MIOG, Part II, Section 17-5 (5). Appointees making inquiries regarding the status of their BI are to be referred to the client agency.

Conduct investigation in accordance with guidelines set forth in airtel to all offices dated 11/29/90, captioned "Changes in Special Inquiry (SPIN) Background Investigations (.BI) and Procedures".

The fourth paragraph is completely redacted.

Here is the fifth paragraph:

Appointee is described as born on February 24, 1955 in San Francisco; California; has SSAN 549-94-3295; resides at [redacted text] and is currently president of NEXT, Incorporated, Redwood City, California.

The next paragraph gets more into the meat of what they are looking for, which includes some instructions for those performing the various interviews.

Appointee will be required to make decisions concerning policy and personnel matters; therefore, during interviews, determine if appointee has expressed or manifested any bias or prejudice against any individual or group based upon sex, race, color, religion, national origin, handicap or age.  Determine if appointee lives within his financial means. Also determine if appointee uses illegal drugs or abuses alcohol.

Note that this section does not set forth requirements of the candidate, but sets forth the scope of inquiry, probably to be used in the process of assessing the candidate.  If we break out the categories in an orderly fashion, we can determine the scope as follows:

·         Find any evidence of bias or prejudice for the following categories:

o   Sex

o   Race

o   Color

o   Religion

o   National origin

o   Handicap

o   Age

·         Find out if the candidate lives within his financial means.

·         Find out if the candidate uses illegal drugs.

·         Find out if the candidate abuses alcohol.

The next paragraph seems to imply the purpose of these subjects:

Investigation should receive immediate attention and receiving offices should telephonically advise FBIRQ of any derogatory information developed, confirm by teletype, and record pertinent interviews relating to derogatory information on FD-302s.

So, the officers are looking for derogatory information, and they fully intend to record such derogatory information on form FD-302S.

The next paragraph states that the officers need to collect all information available on the candidate for the previous ten years.  If there are any gaps in the findings, the gaps must be investigated.

Receiving offices note that the last ten years of appointee's life must be accounted for and, if during the course of investigation unexplained or unaccounted for gaps are identified, leads should be directed to the field office covering appointee's current employment to have appointee contacted and to have his activities during specific periods identified.

There is a section in the letter entitled “Leads.”  The first paragraph of this section is as follows:

San Francisco: Immediately interview appointee in accordance with MIOG, Part II, Section 17-5.6 and will report results on an FD-302.  At an absolute minimum, the FD-302 should clearly set forth the appointee's responses to those questions labeled a-m under Section 17-5.6 cited above.  Determine dated and place of birth of daughter, [text redacted] Also determine who her mother is and interview her or set lead.  [2 ½ lines of text redacted].  Obtain comments from Mr. Jobs concerning and past/current drug use and his termination from Apple Computers.

So, the instructions are to look for information concerning Jobs’ illegitimate daughter that he fathered with his girlfriend.  Again, it seems they are looking for scandalous information. 

Sidebar into the FBI Manual of Investigative Operations and Guidelines (MIOG)

Per the instructions from the letter in the section above, I took the time to find FBI MIOG Part II Section 17-5.6 questions a-m.  This particular section was not easy to find, and it was somewhat difficult to get the exact PDF file downloaded.  (It is amazing that the FBI just publishes their playbook online for the entire world to see.)  The section is as follows:

(a) Completeness and accuracy of the SF-86. The majority of the interview should not be spent reviewing the SF-86.  In most cases, it has been reviewed by FBIHQ personnel for completeness.

(b)  Personal and business credit issues, including, but not limited to, repossessions, delinquent student loans, debts placed for collection and bankruptcy. (See Part II, 17-5.8.)

(c) Unpaid tax obligations. To the best of his/her knowledge, is the applicant current on all federal, state and local tax obligations. Has he/she ever made back payment" of any such tax?  This includes, but is not limited to, income taxes, medicare taxes, social security taxes, and unemployment taxes. If tax delinquencies or back payments are identified, determine type and amount (original and current) of tax owed/paid, tax year(s) covered, efforts and/or problems in paying the tax.  Do not conduct any further investigation concerning federal tax delinquencies or back payments--FBIHQ will provide the information directly to the client agency which will consult directly with the IRS if necessary.  For state and local tax delinquencies or back payments, immediately notify FBIHQ.  If instructed to do so by FBIHQ, set forth appropriate leads to field offices to verify the information' provided by the applicant.

(d) Civil suits' as plaintiff or defendant, including divorces. Identify issues litigated.

(e) Any involvement in criminal matters as suspect or subject or any criminal charge, arrest and/or conviction.

(f) Any denials of/employment and/or dismissals, particularly in the Federal sector.  Include reasons.

(g) Any contact with representatives of foreign countries.

(h) Details of professional complaints or any nonjudicial disciplinary action, e.g., bar association grievances, better business complaints, student or military disciplinary proceedings.  Equal Employment Opportunity complaints, etc.

(i) Business/investment circumstances' that could or have involved conflict of interest allegations.

(j) Details of any psychological counseling with psychiatrists, psychologists, other qualified counselors or others.

(k) Any prescription drug or alcohol abuse, illegal drug use, to include marijuana and participation in drug/alcohol counseling/rehabilitation programs, during applicant's entire adult life (since age 18).  Identify all drugs used, when used, duration of usage, amount of drug used, place where drug was used (public or private setting), how the drug was obtained, whether or not applicant has provided drugs to anyone, if applicant has purchased or sold drugs, others having knowledge of applicant's drug use.

(l) Memberships in organizations whose policies restrict membership on the basis of sex, race, color, religion or national origin.  Determine if, in fact, the membership of the organization includes minorities (Presidential appointees, U.S. Bankruptcy, Special Tribunal, and U.S. Magistrate Judges only).  If it is determined that a candidate has been a member of such an organization within the most recent five-year period, determine the candidate's role, for example, as a policy-making officer, in such an organization; determine if any steps have been taken by the candidate to alter official or covert restrictive admissions policies; and ascertain the candidate's personal viewpoint toward such policies.  Any organizations that are determined to have potentially restrictive/discriminatory admissions policies shall be checked in field offices' indices for pertinent references.

(m) Any involvement in any organization which advocates the use of force to overthrow the U.S. Government, or any involvement in the commission of sabotage, espionage or assistance of others in terrorism.

This list is quite thorough.  It is also amazing in some of its implicit political implications.

Back to the Released FBI File on Jobs…

The second paragraph under “Leads” reads as follows:

San Francisco: Insure at least fifteen persons knowledgeable concerning appointee are interviewed.  Check Better Business Bureau concerning any complaints that may have been lodged against him or his companies. Through records and interviews, determine reason for termination from Apple Computers. Obtain details of listed lawsuits through appointee and court records, Determine dispositions and if appointee was ever personally named as a defendant. Contact the United States Attorneys' Offices wherever appointee has lived or worked as an adult to determine if any indication appointee has been involved in a matter handled by the U. S. Attorney’s Office (either criminal or civil, in closed or current files).

So, the officers are to talk to at least 15 people in San Francisco. 

This is the end of the meat of the letter from the Director of the FBI.

Throughout the FBI files, there are a few themes repeated from the several interviews with relatives and associates of Jobs:

·         Jobs’ departure from Apple Computer

·         Jobs’ legal issues with Apple Computer

·         Several people commented on Jobs’ drug use from his college days in the 1960s which included marijuana and LSD.

·         Several questioned Jobs’ honesty.

·         One or more brought into question Jobs’ sense of reality and he being able to distort reality to achieve his goals.

·         Jobs had a daughter out of wedlock.

·         Jobs did not provide for his daughter for several years, but in recent years has become more supportive.

Commentary

For any high position within the government, we are probably better off with a detailed investigation as described in this FBI file.  However, is it prudent that these files are released after the subject is dead?  Some of this information is extremely private and contains commentary from former lovers and former associates who may not have an unbiased view of the subject.  Is this appropriate to release?  The authorization letter from the Director explicitly states that one of the goals is to find derogatory information. 

On the other hand, we do not want our agencies to run amok without some oversight on these matters.  That which is hidden can be abused – especially with such a powerful agency as the FBI.

Perhaps, looking at this from another angle, this may be the price to pay for the ambition in wanting to participate in high positions within the government.  One gets a thorough background check, complete with all the gossip, lies, truth, and everything else including the kitchen sink within the file, with the full knowledge that once one dies, this information can be released to the public.  The trade-off could be seen as the price of admission to play in the government Big Leagues.  The problem with this angle is that many friends, associates and family members will be affected by this information, and perhaps they have no control over the release of this information.

Perhaps the public is now similar to a voyeur with the release of this information.  Are we better off knowing this, or is this information harmful to our souls as in we really do not have a right to know these things from a complete stranger?  Perhaps if this person did indeed assume a position of power and authority within the government, then we may be enlightened toward whether we deem his person trustworthy or not.  But, Jobs apparently did not assume this position, but we still can get our hands on this stuff.  Is this right?  Maybe not.  But, perhaps this is the price we pay to live in a society with some degree of government oversight.  It is an interesting question for political science.