Published: 04-03-2019, Rémon Verkerk
English bombers returning from their flights over Germany during WWII were analysed for bullet holes. These extensive analyses were carried out to understand where the bombers were most affected and were therefore most vulnerable. In those places, all aircraft were reinforced extra. Not in itself a wrong approach, is it?
The same feeling creeps up regularly when we analyse the police’s investigative file at the request of a client. Such a file analysis usually stems from a
so-called ‘Complaint not prosecution (Art.12 Sv)’.
When investigating serious crimes, the police/justice department pulls out the necessary to get the truth out. The diversity of research methods and powers is great:
observation, tapping telecommunications, financial and digital research, et cetera. The information obtained should contribute to a clear, well-founded image surrounding the crime. If this image is not sufficiently clear, the Public Prosecutor may decide not to bring the case to the court and not prosecute any suspects.
In order to explain the parallel with the bombers examined, we briefly reflect on the view of statistician Abraham Wald on the analysis of the bullet holes. By ‘looking differently’ he concluded that the engineers were wrong and the places with the fewest bullet holes needed extra reinforcement.
The engineers forgot that they didn’t see all the planes. All they saw was the planes that hadn’t crashed. The places where they never saw a bullet hole were the real weak spots.
https://www.omdenken.nl/inspiratie-en-verhalen/bomdenken
Wald’s perspective led to extra reinforcement in the unblemished areas and ensured that many more devices returned safely.
At PSG we do not employ statisticians; critics. In almost every file analysis, we manage to provide new insights to the police and the judiciary. We try to avoid as much bias as possible and have an open mind, which offers us the possibility of a different perspective. The starting point is NOT to undermine the conclusions in the police file. The police have often investigated the ‘bullet holes on the bombers’ extensively. PSG, with its multi-disciplinary team of experts (and sometimes only on the basis of common sense), are trying to determine whether there is information to be gained in those areas, which the police/justice investigation has not focused on, or where the expertise used has failed.
However, where a potential source has been investigated, the way in which this investigation took place is not to be deduced from the report and is sufficient to: “Investigations are carried out; found nothing relevant.”
We regularly see the latter in studies within digital environments, where computer systems are increasingly being secured and investigated. Matters which are apparently not meaningful at the time of the investigation of these systems may prove to be of importance at a later date.
Our private investigators have in-depth knowledge of, among other things, tactical investigations, technical investigators, securing (biological) traces and digital forensic examination. The investigation questions put forward by PSG contribute to the request for legal action… and with it to find truth!