PART FOUR OF A FOUR PART SERIES
Management Response
INTRODUCTION:
Criticisms, no more criticisms – with over fifty years in policing and investigations, the last ten years almost solely concentrating on missing persons, I have identified gaps in most cases. However, I am generally not overly critical, why? Because I understand reality and the limitations and pressures in which police work.
I also understand that it is the front-line officer who is usually the target for criticism, which is often double-barrelled with the full-choke hit coming from superiors who ironically set the standards of operational resources and training which are a major contributor in influencing the errors of judgement or investigative gaps highlighted. (I will briefly raise some of the management responsibilities in Part 4 of this series - to come later).
True to the often-hectic nature of an emergency call this is only going to be a brief foray into what is sometimes a journey into a complex unknown and evolving case where a person has been reported missing in a bush or wilderness area.
Ordinarily to cover this subject in its entirety we would have to discuss a whole range of topics including communication, investigative senses and thinking, biases, and the depths of analytical thinking. However, this is a briefing only, and the in-depth narrative on those and other related topics will be left for another day.
Also, in order to put this into a realistic perspective, from the outset I am going to state that the points and considerations raised here are for ‘The Perfect World’ scenario and we all know that there is no such thing as a ‘Perfect World’. However, the points I do raise, are in the main identified gaps from just one high-profile missing person case. However, they have similarly been identified in other cases in many jurisdictions, in many countries, over many years.
PART 4: Management Response – The Gaps in the whole process
CAMEO SCENARIO
A family member is at a trailhead car park and is reporting a missing adult lone male family member as an overdue hiker. It is late afternoon; the hiker had set out early morning for a four-hour hike along a wide and navigable trail in a heavily-wooded water catchment area. He was extremely well equipped with GPS, phone, food, and water.
In this case the call-taker took the basic details and despatched a police unit to attend. (The reporting family member heard a supervisor in the background comment that her husband had got himself lost). Sometime later a uniformed police unit arrived, and a police helicopter was observed overhead.
OPERATIONAL RESPONSE
The first police unit on scene took down basic initial details and commenced a land search of the navigable roads and tracks for some hours. These police officers missed an opportunity to follow up on a single ‘other’ vehicle in the same car park as the missing person, which was left abandoned next to the missing person’s vehicle for at least three days into the operation. The occupants of this vehicle were missed in the subsequent investigation and not interviewed until twelve years later.
The above matter of the abandoned vehicle is only one example of a missed investigative opportunity, probably due to initial and investigative response gaps in the approach of officers who attended the case.
Over the years, mostly due to investigative gaps uncovered, the police agency and the coroner are spending more time avoiding contact with the family and attempting to shut them down to avoid agency reputational harm, than cooperating and trying to resolve the issues.
These conflicts between police agencies and the families of missing persons over gaps and flaws in the first response and investigative phases of cases, is universal. With the complaints covering all manner of issues, from no initial investigation at all, to lost exhibits, and/or failure to interview key witnesses.
WHAT IS THE MOOD?
There are many cases in my files where the families of the long-term missing have reported going into a police station to report their loved one missing, only to be turned away with a, “Oh, don’t worry he’s probably gone to the movies with his mates”, or “She’s probably staying at a friend’s house, come back tomorrow if you don’t hear from her by then.” In one high-profile case key witnesses were turned away from a 24-hour police station and told to go to their local police station. (It was the same police force. The local station was shut, the witnesses were inconvenienced, believed the police were disinterested, consequently their statements were not taken for six months, and the opportunity of the relevant information they had was lost).
Many times, I have heard detectives say, “It is a missing person case, where is the crime?”, which is clearly saying that they are not interested. I understand it, who can blame them. They have a truck load of classic cases coming in their door, armed robberies, assaults, car-thefts, and now a myriad of cyber type crimes, all covered under the various crimes acts, but where does a missing person case fit in?
At the same time, I hear the families of missing persons, and the missing persons’ advocacy and support groups, all saying. “There should be someone else investigating missing person cases, some group that understands and appreciates the complexity of the investigations and dealing with the families”.
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
Firstly, pretty well across the board it falls on the police to respond to and investigate missing person cases. Realistically, at least at first response, I do not think there could be another way, especially when we consider the sheer number of cases, and the likelihood that some will be criminal or coronial matters.
The problem is in the attitudinal response of many officers, which is influenced by their experiential knowledge that most missing person cases will end up resolved in a very short time without a need for investigative intervention. This experiential bias, which may also be partly fuelled by other priorities and limited time and resources, leads many officers into a false path of assumption and consequential error of judgement.
The importance of missing person reports needs to be elevated to a higher priority of investigative thinking in policing.
HOW BIG IS THE PROBLEM?
In Australia there are approximately 55000 missing person reports each year. Of these about 97% are reportedly found safe and well, which leaves about 1600 not found. Obviously within this number there would be many lost at sea in drownings, and lost in the bush. However, it seems to be worthy of note that when we look at the figures of the National Missing Persons Coordination Centre (which is connected to the Australian Federal Police) they tell us that there are approximately 2,600 long term missing persons in Australia, and about 550 unidentified human remains. (Long Term Missing Persons is deemed to be missing for more than three months).
What I cannot ascertain with accuracy is the formula for the additions and subtractions to the long term missing person number of 2600. It seems to remain too static especially when we look at the annual shortfall of about 1600? I am told by the NMPCC that the State and Territory Police agencies supply the data.
As far as persons lost in wilderness or bush areas, we know that approximately 74% are found safe and well, with a further 16% found injured. Only about 1% involves some form of criminality.
Regardless of what the real figures are, which I believe should be the subject of a separate inquiry, they are still staggering as far as a human tragedy is concerned. Especially when we apply the Missed Foundation formula of 12 suffering family members to one missing person. Just against the NMPCC 2600 long term missing person statistics, it leaves over 30,000 suffering Australians. Whereas the 55,000 missing Australians each year have approximately 600,000 family members concerned for their whereabouts, welfare, with many critical of how the police respond to their report for support and help.
On the topic of family members dealing with losing a loved one to the land of the missing, the difficulty can best be articulated by the words of a Canadian mother who in responding to this series of articles said,
“I'm so glad you included the importance of family support and open communications. I also appreciate you identifying our experience as that of Ambiguous Loss, with credit to Dr Pauline Boss[i].
Please know that it is the LOSS we are struggling with, not GRIEF. As Pauline explains, in our situation our grief is "frozen" because we don't know what we are grieving - they may be alive, they may be dead, we just don't know, hence the ambiguity. Once we know, the grief can then kick in. For me, I never really grieved, what I experienced was relief, like the black cloud had lifted; I knew Daniel (son) would want us to be happy, not sad and celebrate his life and the fond memories.
So, is grief more of a social construct perhaps? More research is needed to understand our needs versus being told that we are grieving. Enough about my take on it, I look forward to reading and reflecting on the rest of your series!”
HOW TO FIX THE PROBLEM?
First the extent and detail of the problem has to be recognised. The level of change needed will likely differ in various jurisdictions. Conduct an independent review of a number of cases by interviewing family members, first response officers, search and rescue operatives (where deployed) and detectives. Study the files, case notes and any relevant coroner’s reports.
Identify and examine world’s best practise, in missing person case first response and investigative response. Explore capacity to implement elements of the same into agency operations.
Once the extent of the first response and investigative gaps have been determined, re-write all operational manuals to reflect the adjustments to procedures accordingly.
Simultaneously, introduce training of all key personnel with the introduction of the amended operational manuals.
CONCLUSION
I have only briefly touched on the topic of first response and investigative gaps in missing person investigations. The challenges of this daily police operational function are complex. It is an enormously important and highly traumatic responsibility, which unfortunately often gets swept aside as a minor irritant much like the family ‘domestic violence’ situation used to be.
Similarly, much like ‘family violence’, missing person cases can sometimes be fuelled by ‘mental health’ issues, which can and do end up as a fatality. That is only one element of many which should elevate missing person cases to the forefront of police priorities.
The big consideration with missing person cases is that in every incident we are dealing with a very real risk of the loss of a human life, that one consideration alone makes it a ‘High Priority’.
The failure of frontline police to connect, and to read the operational environment, cannot always just be written off as lack of experience or a disciplinary matter. Often, operational police do not connect because they have not been conditioned by their training, or by their supervisors, to read the environment which again may be a training or organisational structural issue. Or perhaps they do not have the right button to press or the systematic process in place to trigger the right response once they are alerted to something they have been conditioned for.
Many years ago, as police, we often sailed the plane into the wind without an engine. Somehow, due to our independent freewheeling skills and options we always managed to stay airborne. Now the plane is overloaded and the dependency on the wind is no longer reliable. Scrutiny and expectations are higher than ever.
The mother’s comments above show that this is not something that can be left to anyone, or more commonly no-one to deal with. In these cases, there is a real need for specialist, compassionate and empathetic investigative input and it is executive management that have to realise the need and action the change.
Even if just one police force in Australia or anywhere in the World took this change on as a priority it would be a step in the right direction. Perhaps it could just be introduced as a gradual change at a training level, with recruits and supervisor and detective training. Or as a holistic challenge for one operational police district to run as a pilot, with a new operational manual plus the training. Anything is better than how it has been.
Management need to step up, wade into the fray, and recognise that the buck stops with them.
Note: For presentation options on this series please contact the writer on our website at www.footprintsinthewilderness.com.au
________________________________________________________________
Written by Valentine Smith APM (Co-founder of Footprints in the Wilderness)
Footprintsinthewilderness.com.au – November 2024
[i] Dr Pauline Boss. Ph.D. www.ambiguousloss.com
コメント