While reading chapter six in the textbook, Just the Facts: Investigative Report Writing, a couple of key concepts came up that I would like to explore further. These include the mentioning of the limiting of unsupported opinion after it explains the importance of writing a report to the proper length that the facts of the case creates, explaining why the five senses are something that anyone would be thinking about when doing a report, and then what the pros and cons are of the fill-in-the-blanks and report formats. These three things are interesting, but inhibit my full understanding of report writing. In order to be properly prepared to a write a report I would like to discuss these things further.I will briefly discuss why below.
I do not like that the limiting of unsupported opinion is mentioned in here. In what I have experienced in regard to report writing I have been told to leave opinion out of it. This includes all things opinion related. The report is to be fact based and last as long, as I mentioned above that the book touches on, as the facts of a case may warrant. Further, I do not think the mentioning of the five senses is needed in this chapter. An investigator and police officers together know that they must take in the entirety of a scene in order to fully understand what it entailed and then allow oneself to document it in a report effectively. I do not think people need to be reminded to use their sight or their smell, among the other senses, to describe a scene. I think they already know perfectly well that these will be required. Finally, I think it would be helpful to discuss what everyone likes and dislikes about the different report formats. I think it would allow us to understand them better and then allow for us to be prepared to write each one to the fullest extent.
To conclude, I enjoyed chapter 6 and I think it was beneficial to learning about the report writing aspect of law enforcement to a fuller extent in the form of arrest reports.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Sunday, March 20, 2016
The impact of ones appearance
After reading A Black Man Wore Different Kinds Of Clothing To See If People Treated Him Differently I have many different feelings and reactions about it. These feelings and reactions are in response to how the individual, Pedro, in the story felt when he changed his cloths and how different clothing choices affected others so strongly. With that being said, I will elaborate further in the paper below.
This article honestly made me sad and a little embarrassed as a human being. I mean after all we have been through in regard to our history must we still succumb to these stereotypical views and reactions? It seems as though we must with all of the evidence Pedro was able to gain on the subject as support for such a statement. The common theme for each of Pedro's days were simple. He would structure his days in two parts, which included dressing up first and then dressing down second. He would visit select places, in both attire, and compare the experiences. Pedro had favorable experiences when dressing up. but very negative ones when dressing down. These negatives I am referencing came in all sizes, but were all equally unacceptable in my opinion. Pedro would get extended greetings, more respect, less stereotypical action taken against him, and in fact experience equal and appropriate treatment when dressed up. In the same situations he would not get the door held open for him, be seated at the front of the restaurant, be given a break, right away, when coming up short with bus fair, or have the respectful and carefree conversations all people, despite appearances, should be able to have. The whole thing just upset me. I mean what are other factors that went in to this? I can be sure in saying anything, but race and dress seem to be the biggest factors. Are there other things? I am sure, but clearly the above mentioned are central and I think that is ridiculous. Pedro was just dressing comfortably in sweats and a sweatshirt most of the time. That does not make him a thug or criminal or something, but it seems our society has become blinded by expectations given to us by our media and outdated opinion. In my opinion it is awful and I hope it one day gets better.
Further, I think it is important to mention how Pedro felt while dressing up for this experiment. This experience gave him an influx of emotions it seemed. He felt confident and good when dressing up, but no himself. Then, on the other hand, when he was dressing down he seemed to have to prepare himself for the aggression and anger he would get for being himself and that is ridiculous in my opinion. He could not feel completely comfortable in his attire it seemed and that hurt me to see. So, beyond the results, we see how a person can feel going through a difficult experience like this.
To conclude, I think Pedro's experiment was very successful because it showed the awful present situation our society finds itself in. It seems we have become predisposed to negatively view African American males by their look and dress and that is not right. The feelings Pedro has about the experiment,a s it was happening, in reaction to the experiences he was happening dressing up and dressing down all but confirm that I think.
 |
| Image Source |
This article honestly made me sad and a little embarrassed as a human being. I mean after all we have been through in regard to our history must we still succumb to these stereotypical views and reactions? It seems as though we must with all of the evidence Pedro was able to gain on the subject as support for such a statement. The common theme for each of Pedro's days were simple. He would structure his days in two parts, which included dressing up first and then dressing down second. He would visit select places, in both attire, and compare the experiences. Pedro had favorable experiences when dressing up. but very negative ones when dressing down. These negatives I am referencing came in all sizes, but were all equally unacceptable in my opinion. Pedro would get extended greetings, more respect, less stereotypical action taken against him, and in fact experience equal and appropriate treatment when dressed up. In the same situations he would not get the door held open for him, be seated at the front of the restaurant, be given a break, right away, when coming up short with bus fair, or have the respectful and carefree conversations all people, despite appearances, should be able to have. The whole thing just upset me. I mean what are other factors that went in to this? I can be sure in saying anything, but race and dress seem to be the biggest factors. Are there other things? I am sure, but clearly the above mentioned are central and I think that is ridiculous. Pedro was just dressing comfortably in sweats and a sweatshirt most of the time. That does not make him a thug or criminal or something, but it seems our society has become blinded by expectations given to us by our media and outdated opinion. In my opinion it is awful and I hope it one day gets better.
Further, I think it is important to mention how Pedro felt while dressing up for this experiment. This experience gave him an influx of emotions it seemed. He felt confident and good when dressing up, but no himself. Then, on the other hand, when he was dressing down he seemed to have to prepare himself for the aggression and anger he would get for being himself and that is ridiculous in my opinion. He could not feel completely comfortable in his attire it seemed and that hurt me to see. So, beyond the results, we see how a person can feel going through a difficult experience like this.
To conclude, I think Pedro's experiment was very successful because it showed the awful present situation our society finds itself in. It seems we have become predisposed to negatively view African American males by their look and dress and that is not right. The feelings Pedro has about the experiment,a s it was happening, in reaction to the experiences he was happening dressing up and dressing down all but confirm that I think.
Friday, March 11, 2016
Visual Cues In People: What do they mean?
After watching the second episode of Making a Murderer I feel there are four characters that stood out to me in regard to the interviews they gave. I thought the visual cues they exuded were very telling in explaining how they were really feeling regarding the investigation into Avery's case and what actually happened. These people included Chief Deputy Eugene Kusche, District Attorney Mark Rohrer, Sargent Andrew Colborn, and Deputy Judy Dvorak. I feel like these individuals, who were front and center when talking about the Avery case that landed him unjustly in jail for eighteen years, through their posture, gestures, facial expressions and more allow us to see how visual cues can be telling when explaining what the individual is truly thinking and or feeling regarding the subject of interest or Avery in this case. In the post below I will elaborate further on what cues were given away by these individuals that caught my attention.
To begin, Chief Deputy Eugene Kusche was involved with sketching the photo from the description Penny Beerntsen gave him regarding her attacker. Kusche was questioned about whether he had truly drawn the sketch from the description or used an earlier mugshot of Avery in an attempt to help convict him. I would describe him as very stand offish and very unemotional or driven by the conversation. Simply, it did not seem like he cared very much. This was exemplified by his lack of emotion when he answered question and then when he actually rolled his eyes at the questioner. He was so un-enthused and un-interested in the task at hand he was upset that he was being asked certain questions. This shows to me how he was an uninterested, self praising, and disrespectful human being who couldn't even care enough when the case he was being questioned about resulted in an injustice of the imprisonment of an individual for eighteen years for a crime he did not commit.
Further, District Attorney Mark Rohrer was noticeably disgruntled during his interview. He looked nervous when he was answering questions. This was defined by his face getting red, his slow responses, the way he was sweating, and how he was fidgeting with his hands. He could not remain still and the amount of color change in his face and the sweat involved paint a picture describing a man that feels guilty to me.
Moving on, Sergeant Andrew Colborn was the officer that received the call regarding Gregory Allen's recent arrest in Brown County and his confession that he had committed a assault in Avery's to and that the wrong man was arrested for it. The issue here was it seemed that the issue was not documented for eight years following it, so he was questioned about what he knew on the subject. The biggest thing I noticed with Colborn was that he was sitting very drawn into himself with his hands very close to his body. This to me shows that he is nervous. He was very wide eyed and trying to be as still as possible I thought. So, I feel like his stiffness and his wide eyed state explicate a person who is nervous and may be feeling that they are in the wrong in accordance to this case. He looked guilty from the start and the stiffness to me just shows someone trying to hard to hide their true feelings, which I feel are explicated through his wide eyes and nervous aura.
Finally, Deputy Judy Dvorak was also interviewed about the case. I really disliked how she was consistently answering the questions. She seemed to constantly answer the questions with large pauses and even tried to say that since it was a long time ago the information they say happened in evidence presented may not have been discussed the way it is being described. So, she was using the gap between the events and the questioning to help protect herself from her younger self and, on top of that, she did not seem to know the answers to the questions very quickly. She took very long for each question and I think this is an indication of someone trying to lye possibly. Overall, it was her deflective persona and lack of fluid question answering that I feel made her suspicious in regard to her questioning.
To conclude, I understand that there was many years that had passed between the event in question, Avery's unjust arrest and imprisonment, and questioning that occurred. So, this could explain the nervousness and the lack of fluid question answering. Yet, I feel that since this is a big case, in-regard to the injustice it created, the people being interviewed would remember their parts in the situation. So, I feel that the standoffish attitudes, unemotional responses, red faces, sweaty foreheads, fidgety hands, stiffness, wide eyed looks, lack of fluid question answering, and deflection tactics are more a result of lying and deceit that the individuals being interviewed feel are necessary to defend themselves.
 |
| Image Source |
To begin, Chief Deputy Eugene Kusche was involved with sketching the photo from the description Penny Beerntsen gave him regarding her attacker. Kusche was questioned about whether he had truly drawn the sketch from the description or used an earlier mugshot of Avery in an attempt to help convict him. I would describe him as very stand offish and very unemotional or driven by the conversation. Simply, it did not seem like he cared very much. This was exemplified by his lack of emotion when he answered question and then when he actually rolled his eyes at the questioner. He was so un-enthused and un-interested in the task at hand he was upset that he was being asked certain questions. This shows to me how he was an uninterested, self praising, and disrespectful human being who couldn't even care enough when the case he was being questioned about resulted in an injustice of the imprisonment of an individual for eighteen years for a crime he did not commit.
Further, District Attorney Mark Rohrer was noticeably disgruntled during his interview. He looked nervous when he was answering questions. This was defined by his face getting red, his slow responses, the way he was sweating, and how he was fidgeting with his hands. He could not remain still and the amount of color change in his face and the sweat involved paint a picture describing a man that feels guilty to me.
Moving on, Sergeant Andrew Colborn was the officer that received the call regarding Gregory Allen's recent arrest in Brown County and his confession that he had committed a assault in Avery's to and that the wrong man was arrested for it. The issue here was it seemed that the issue was not documented for eight years following it, so he was questioned about what he knew on the subject. The biggest thing I noticed with Colborn was that he was sitting very drawn into himself with his hands very close to his body. This to me shows that he is nervous. He was very wide eyed and trying to be as still as possible I thought. So, I feel like his stiffness and his wide eyed state explicate a person who is nervous and may be feeling that they are in the wrong in accordance to this case. He looked guilty from the start and the stiffness to me just shows someone trying to hard to hide their true feelings, which I feel are explicated through his wide eyes and nervous aura.
Finally, Deputy Judy Dvorak was also interviewed about the case. I really disliked how she was consistently answering the questions. She seemed to constantly answer the questions with large pauses and even tried to say that since it was a long time ago the information they say happened in evidence presented may not have been discussed the way it is being described. So, she was using the gap between the events and the questioning to help protect herself from her younger self and, on top of that, she did not seem to know the answers to the questions very quickly. She took very long for each question and I think this is an indication of someone trying to lye possibly. Overall, it was her deflective persona and lack of fluid question answering that I feel made her suspicious in regard to her questioning.
To conclude, I understand that there was many years that had passed between the event in question, Avery's unjust arrest and imprisonment, and questioning that occurred. So, this could explain the nervousness and the lack of fluid question answering. Yet, I feel that since this is a big case, in-regard to the injustice it created, the people being interviewed would remember their parts in the situation. So, I feel that the standoffish attitudes, unemotional responses, red faces, sweaty foreheads, fidgety hands, stiffness, wide eyed looks, lack of fluid question answering, and deflection tactics are more a result of lying and deceit that the individuals being interviewed feel are necessary to defend themselves.
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Making a Murderer episode two: What scenes caught my attention?
In class on Monday we viewed episode two of the series Making a Murderer and twos scenes really caught my attention. These scenes revolved around the way certain individuals were acting when interviewed about Steven Avery's case and how Avery reacted to facing his accuser. These scenes, for me, allowed you to see both sides of the coin and the true individual personality that exists. With Avery, you see a person who lost everything, but sees the light and has the ability to forgive the one who is partially responsible for the lose of his freedom. With investigators who took away Avery's freedom, I see people who are shaky, nervous, do not make any sense, and display signs of a person who is lying. My feelings on these scenes will be discussed further below.
To begin, I think in the show when Avery was talking about his accuser, Penny Beerntsen, we see a mature indidivual who was on the other side of a horrible situation accept it and not blame the one that was hurt just as bad. Avery knew she was not the entire reason he was found guilty for something he did not do and he took the high road with someone who had already been through enough as it is. I say this because when Beerntsen came to apologize to him they shared a tight embrace and Avery said it was okay and that it was over. This is the closure a situation like this needs in order for people to get past it. I was very happy to see this in the episode.
Moving on, there were several interviews that upset me in this episode that involved people responsible for the investigation against Avery and the things related to the case beyond it. These interviews included Chief Deputy Eugene Kusche, Mark Rohrer, Sargent Andrew Colborn, and Deputy Judy Dvorak. They each displayed to me signs of deception that I did not appreciate. They werer answering questions about things that had happened in the past, so I understand that they might not remember a lot, but the time it took them to answer questions, the way certain people fidgeted, like Mark Rohrer and Judy Dvorak, it made me feel like they were hiding something. Then, the way inofrmation failed to pass along correctly and how it seems the use of evidence was misused, in relation to Andrew Colborn with the phone call about Gregory Allen in 1995 and the sketch with Chief Deputy Eugene Kusche, I feel that Avery was set up to fail and stay in jail for a much longer time then he needed to and that makes me sick. Once again I feel we see an instance in law enforcement where I think the conviction rate was seen as more important then attaining justice.
With the above being said, these were the instances in episode two of Making a Murderer that made the most impact on me.
 |
| Image Source |
To begin, I think in the show when Avery was talking about his accuser, Penny Beerntsen, we see a mature indidivual who was on the other side of a horrible situation accept it and not blame the one that was hurt just as bad. Avery knew she was not the entire reason he was found guilty for something he did not do and he took the high road with someone who had already been through enough as it is. I say this because when Beerntsen came to apologize to him they shared a tight embrace and Avery said it was okay and that it was over. This is the closure a situation like this needs in order for people to get past it. I was very happy to see this in the episode.
Moving on, there were several interviews that upset me in this episode that involved people responsible for the investigation against Avery and the things related to the case beyond it. These interviews included Chief Deputy Eugene Kusche, Mark Rohrer, Sargent Andrew Colborn, and Deputy Judy Dvorak. They each displayed to me signs of deception that I did not appreciate. They werer answering questions about things that had happened in the past, so I understand that they might not remember a lot, but the time it took them to answer questions, the way certain people fidgeted, like Mark Rohrer and Judy Dvorak, it made me feel like they were hiding something. Then, the way inofrmation failed to pass along correctly and how it seems the use of evidence was misused, in relation to Andrew Colborn with the phone call about Gregory Allen in 1995 and the sketch with Chief Deputy Eugene Kusche, I feel that Avery was set up to fail and stay in jail for a much longer time then he needed to and that makes me sick. Once again I feel we see an instance in law enforcement where I think the conviction rate was seen as more important then attaining justice.
With the above being said, these were the instances in episode two of Making a Murderer that made the most impact on me.
Friday, February 26, 2016
My strengths and weaknesses in my writing
My writing is not perfect and is in need of a thorough examination in order to discover what my weaknesses and strengths are. Some of the things that I want to work on include procrastination, grammar, and paper organization. These three weaknesses really hinder my writing. They affect my writing process, my end result, and the way my content is heard and displayed. When these things are not done to the degree necessary for successful writing a well-done writing product becomes impossible. Some strengths that I have include being thorough and very detailed. I tend to write very detailed papers that are full of information, but this strength turns in to another weakness as well. This is the weakness of redundancy. I tend to write so much that I bring up things I have already talked about and, while I think this is important, I do not need to do it as much as I do because it makes my writing wordy. This wordiness makes clarity in my paper difficult to achieve.
With the above being said, my writing needs a lot of work. My biggest fear in my writing though, out of those that were mentioned, is the redundancy and over detailed writing I produce sometimes when I do not pay attention to all of the content I am producing. I have to realize that I can delete stuff and that just because my papers are long it does not make them good.
So, I would like to work on clarifying, structuring, and simplifying my future writings so that they are better from the start and do not require as much work to alter them in future drafts.
 |
| Image Source |
So, I would like to work on clarifying, structuring, and simplifying my future writings so that they are better from the start and do not require as much work to alter them in future drafts.
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Tools for Proper Note-taking
Today I am going to write on the subject of field note-taking in law enforcement. One of the most important tools in effective note-taking we discussed in class through information presented to us in our book, Just the Facts: Investigative Report Writing by Michael Biggs, is picking the right notebook that is best for you. We learned that there is no notebook that is above all others and has to be used, but rather that the only thing that matters is that you, as the officer, must be comfortable with the notebook you choose.
With that being said, I looked up three different types of notebooks that can be used in law enforcement to take notes in the field. The first two included the LawTech extra large note-pad, and the LawTech normal size note-pad. The only difference between these two notebooks are the sizes. The extra large notepad is 4 1/2'' by 8 1/2'', while the normal size can be bought at 2 3/4'' by 4 1/2'' or 4'' by 6''. So, the extra large one is much bigger than the normal size one that can be bought at much smaller sizes. Now, the notebooks both include a crime broadcast checklist, note-taking/report writing checklist, and a Miranda advertisement. Yet, the extra large LawTech notebook has 120 pages to the 64 or 92 pages that the normal size LawTech versions have and the extra large LawTech has a spiral binding on the top as opposed to the normal size versions that seem to not. So, these two versions, while very similar, have different features that make each interesting and likable in their own ways.
Now, the third notebook I found is called the police field interview notebook. It's size is similar to the normal size version of the LawTech at 4'' by 8'', it has 70 pages, it has an extra large cover that allows for writing while the individual is standing up, and it has plenty of space to take down facts about many different issues. So, this notebook is great as well. It allows you to have plenty of space, pages, and surfaces to take down good notes, which is crucial to law enforcement if you want to get to the bottom of any case.
Now, with these three notebooks or notepads being described, I would choose the normal size 4'' by 6'' LawTech notebook. I would choose this because I feel like it is the perfect size and the other two are too big. I feel like it is important to be able to slip your notebook in your pocket easily and quickly if you need to take action. Then, I think the features it comes with, highlighted by the Miranda advertisement, are invaluable and would be very helpful to have as reminders in the field. The police field interview notebook has a lot of great features too, headlined by the thick cover that allows you to take notes while standing up, but the features mentioned earlier that the LawTech has are unique and give you an excellent resource in the field that the police field interview notebook does not.
 |
| Image Source |
With that being said, I looked up three different types of notebooks that can be used in law enforcement to take notes in the field. The first two included the LawTech extra large note-pad, and the LawTech normal size note-pad. The only difference between these two notebooks are the sizes. The extra large notepad is 4 1/2'' by 8 1/2'', while the normal size can be bought at 2 3/4'' by 4 1/2'' or 4'' by 6''. So, the extra large one is much bigger than the normal size one that can be bought at much smaller sizes. Now, the notebooks both include a crime broadcast checklist, note-taking/report writing checklist, and a Miranda advertisement. Yet, the extra large LawTech notebook has 120 pages to the 64 or 92 pages that the normal size LawTech versions have and the extra large LawTech has a spiral binding on the top as opposed to the normal size versions that seem to not. So, these two versions, while very similar, have different features that make each interesting and likable in their own ways.
Now, the third notebook I found is called the police field interview notebook. It's size is similar to the normal size version of the LawTech at 4'' by 8'', it has 70 pages, it has an extra large cover that allows for writing while the individual is standing up, and it has plenty of space to take down facts about many different issues. So, this notebook is great as well. It allows you to have plenty of space, pages, and surfaces to take down good notes, which is crucial to law enforcement if you want to get to the bottom of any case.
Now, with these three notebooks or notepads being described, I would choose the normal size 4'' by 6'' LawTech notebook. I would choose this because I feel like it is the perfect size and the other two are too big. I feel like it is important to be able to slip your notebook in your pocket easily and quickly if you need to take action. Then, I think the features it comes with, highlighted by the Miranda advertisement, are invaluable and would be very helpful to have as reminders in the field. The police field interview notebook has a lot of great features too, headlined by the thick cover that allows you to take notes while standing up, but the features mentioned earlier that the LawTech has are unique and give you an excellent resource in the field that the police field interview notebook does not.
Friday, February 19, 2016
Exercise 13 from Chapter Two
The following post is my answer to exercise 13 in our textbook, Just The Facts: Investigative Report Writing by Michael Biggs, where we were asked to rewrite a report using the rules of narrative writing.
On 7-25-15, at approximately 1230 hours, I received a radio call to meet the reporting party, Katherine Tunney, at the address 1647 Rancho, El Fuego. Katherine Tunney lives at home with her parents, Carol and Gary Tunney.
I then made contact with Katherine Tunney, date of birth: 9-16-89, who stated that at around 1215 hours she was getting ready to leave her residence when she observed a white Toyota van wagon stopped in front of her residence facing westbound on the opposite side of the street. What brought her attention to the vehicle was the fact that the driver was turned in his seat taking pictures of her house. Katherine Tunney said that the vehicle was stopped in the middle of the street and not on the complete opposite side.
Katherine Tunney said that she thought this was suspicious and remembered that her mother, Carol Tunney, date of birth: 1-21-66, was approached by a suspicious person back in April.
Katherine Tunney tried to make contact with the individual. When she approached the vehicle the individual immediately rolled up his driver side window and drove away. Katherine Tunney said she was able to get the license plate number on the van when it slowed down. So, I then asked Katherine for the license plate number and she said it was 836L92F.
Then, a radio call was initiated on the license plate and it came back to a 2004 Toyota Wagon, registered to Bond, Stephen D. , at 3381 El Balzo, El Fuego. Katherine Tunney describes the male subject involved to be a white male, with graying hair.
When talking to Carol Tunney, she said she filed a report with the police department back in April. She was in front of her garage re-potting a plant when a male individual came up to her and asked her what her name was. Carol Tunney said that she did not give him her name and then proceeded to ask what his name was. He declined to respond.
Carol Tunney said the individual left in a car that had a personalized plate of ISPYONU. Then, the information belonging to the vehicle was run. It came back to a 2008 SAAB registered to Toomey, Richard, 36 Paseo De Bonito, El Rancho.
I told Carol Tunney and Katherine Tunney that at this time no crime has occurred. At this time, no contact has been made with Bond or Tunney and information has been passed on to the investigation division.
Nothing further to report.
 |
| Image Source |
I then made contact with Katherine Tunney, date of birth: 9-16-89, who stated that at around 1215 hours she was getting ready to leave her residence when she observed a white Toyota van wagon stopped in front of her residence facing westbound on the opposite side of the street. What brought her attention to the vehicle was the fact that the driver was turned in his seat taking pictures of her house. Katherine Tunney said that the vehicle was stopped in the middle of the street and not on the complete opposite side.
Katherine Tunney said that she thought this was suspicious and remembered that her mother, Carol Tunney, date of birth: 1-21-66, was approached by a suspicious person back in April.
Katherine Tunney tried to make contact with the individual. When she approached the vehicle the individual immediately rolled up his driver side window and drove away. Katherine Tunney said she was able to get the license plate number on the van when it slowed down. So, I then asked Katherine for the license plate number and she said it was 836L92F.
Then, a radio call was initiated on the license plate and it came back to a 2004 Toyota Wagon, registered to Bond, Stephen D. , at 3381 El Balzo, El Fuego. Katherine Tunney describes the male subject involved to be a white male, with graying hair.
When talking to Carol Tunney, she said she filed a report with the police department back in April. She was in front of her garage re-potting a plant when a male individual came up to her and asked her what her name was. Carol Tunney said that she did not give him her name and then proceeded to ask what his name was. He declined to respond.
Carol Tunney said the individual left in a car that had a personalized plate of ISPYONU. Then, the information belonging to the vehicle was run. It came back to a 2008 SAAB registered to Toomey, Richard, 36 Paseo De Bonito, El Rancho.
I told Carol Tunney and Katherine Tunney that at this time no crime has occurred. At this time, no contact has been made with Bond or Tunney and information has been passed on to the investigation division.
Nothing further to report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)