The Sartorial Sleuth: Double Vision

Michael B. Jordan, in GQ

Someone suggested the other day that a double breasted suit or coat might make a great addition to the PI wardrobe.

I am not a small man. I’m not huge, but by no means small. My shoulders are wide, waist within reason (slowly spreading, but still), and I stand six feet nothing. My body type is, in theory, perfect for a double breasted suit. I’ve just never been a fan.

GQ has a fantastic 9 photo spread this month of Michael B. Jordan, that loveable QB from the Dillon Lions (Friday Night Lights), wearing a series of double breasted suits and coats. He, as one would expect, looks fantastic. The key seems to be in the tailoring.

For a double breasted jacket, one should spend some time with a tailor. The coat should fit snugly, and it shouldn't be too long. Bring in the waist line and accentuate the shoulders. Look for no fewer than six buttons (three on each side) and a peaked lapel. These details draw attention to the shoulders, which is what the DB suit is all about.

Since the DB covers up more neckwear than a single breasted coat, it’s best to pick a spread collar shirt to show off that fantastic tie. And since the DB just seems more formal than the standard suit-coat, it’s perfect for a bow-tie. (Had to get that in)

Accessories - This is a perfect opportunity to throw in some color. Again, the abundance of material in the DB hides most of your tie, so have some fun – tuck in a colorful pocket square.

If you’re going to don the DB, then you must pay some attention to the pants. I usually stick with flat front, straight legged trousers, but for the DB one needs pants that hold it together. A simple pleat and a substantial cuff are required, otherwise the outfit looks top-heavy. Jeans are another thing altogether and I’m not sure the juxtaposition would work, but – hey – if the shoes, shirt, tie and pocket square are perfect, - maybe???

Final thoughts: As I said, the DB coat is not my personal favorite, but I’m willing to try. I’ve been perusing the aisles at FLIP, looking for a double breasted coat to add to the wardrobe. We’ll see…

Invisible Man

We at [FIND] love the romantic (if cliched) image of the PI, the spy, the International Man of Mystery: he is a "he," he wears his fedora low over one eye and his trench coat collar buttoned high and vertically, and he smokes unfiltered Gauloises. Saxophones cry out at his every step (in shiny black wingtips), and the mean streets he treads glisten with ceaseless night rain and its bottomless reflections.

The myth of the PI (or spy) is a story of longing. The noir hero came of age in an era of financial collapse, Fascism, Communism, and world war. He was the hero we wanted then, willing to dirty his hands in the service of Good...and he dressed the part.

Who knows? He and his fedora might have melted perfectly into the murky night in occupied Paris or Cold-War-Era Warsaw. Or maybe even in 1950s Chinatown.

Today, he's as useless as a Crown Vic when it comes to surveillance.

[FIND] lexicon:

Cover for Status - an activity, outfit, and/or manner that provides a false pretext for being in a certain place, so that agent may conduct surveillance without arousing suspicion

Cover for Action - an activity, outfit, and/or manner that provides a false pretext for doing something, so that agent may conduct some type of covert activity without arousing suspicion

In the modern-day PI universe, a guy in a fedora and trench doesn't disappear into the scenery so well. The unsexy truth of it is this: to fade into the background, a PI's gotta set aside fashion and mystery and shoot for dull. To become invisible, or at least to seem so ordinary as to become de facto invisible, (s)he's gotta look like exactly what you'd expect to see in any given environment. A guy sitting in a car with tinted windows arouses suspicion. A guy standing by a work vehicle wearing a hard hat and manipulating some combination of survey tripod, orange cones, and clipboard does not warrant a second glance.

Creating a plausible cover for status means blending in seamlessly to a range of situations—wearing an outfit that makes people forget to see you, doing things that conform to people's idea of what a person in that outfit should be doing, and having a simple story or act ready to go when you're questioned. Magnetic vehicle signs with a fake company logo can complete the story, but make sure the phone number isn't a dead end...or your personal cell phone number.

Cover for action gets a little more complicated, but the same idea applies: have a good reason to be there. Need to get a quick look inside a new house without pulling a B&E (lawbreaking is NOT recommended)? Drop by and welcome the new neighbors to the 'hood with a lovely fruit basket from the local church or neighborhood association.

In the end, "cover" is the operative word: it's about camouflage, urban or otherwise. You can hide almost anywhere by looking as if you belonged there. Ghillie suit seldom, if ever, required.

Interrogation - Backwards and Forwards

Police inquisitors, detectives, and interrogators have long been taught that one method of getting to the truth is to have the subject recount events in reverse order. The theory appears sound: people like to fill in the blanks in a story with constructs, thoughts or images that did not actually happen, to make a tale run smoother. Remove the linear nature of storytelling and the tendency to confabulate should decrease. The theory is so sound, in fact, that police forces in Australia, Britain, New Zealand, Norway, and Spain, to name a few, have been using reverse recall as a matter of policy for years.

I attended a seminar on interviewing where the speaker actually said that this method of interrogation was the most useful way to elicit a truthful statement from an interviewee. “They don’t have the time or the creativity to make things up in reverse-recall,” my instructor said.

Well, as with many a fine theory, when put to scientific rigor, it falls short.

A brief story in September 2, 2011 issue of The Economist details a study by Lancaster University which basically debunks this theory. The researchers showed a short film depicting a cell phone robbery. Two days later the subjects of the test were separated into three groups: 1 – recall the events freely then in reverse order, 2 – recall the robbery in reverse order first then freely, 3 - (control group) recall the events freely both times.

The researchers found that the control group recalled the events correctly 48.7 percent of the time. The group that began with reverse-recall and then recounted the story freely scored 42.2 percent accuracy. The group that started with free recall then reverse-recall scored a pathetic 38.7 percent. I think it’s important to note that eyewitness testimony has already been proven to be less than reliable on several occasions. Seriously, none of the groups achieved even 50% correct recall.

The most interesting finding, however, was that the number of mistakes made among the three groups was roughly the same, but the group that recalled events in reverse order first, actually made up (pure confabulation) recollections 600% more often than the control group.

The majority of the confabulations were observed during the reverse recall portion of the exam. This flies directly in the face of what I’ve been taught in seminars and classes about interview and interrogation.

Why people, people who have no reason whatsoever to lie, make up events when using reverse-recall is a mystery. The Economist says that this study, “…does, however, point out the dangers of taking even logically plausible ideas on trust, rather than testing them.”

Those of you who testify as expert witnesses in court proceedings might want to check out the study here. It could come in handy one day.

More on the Detrimental Impact of Too Many Rules

Disclaimer: I have written about this topic within the past three (or five) years.

I received an email today titled, "Requirement." The sender of the email is a man in whom I place a great deal of trust. I admire him because he is a thinking man who considers issues with efficiency and caution. He, however, is a player in an industry that is gasping its last feeble breaths, thanks in large part to silly, knee-jerk regulations that are applied across an entire industry, regardless of whether or not they mean anything or add to the work product.

It seems that a small cadre of consultants has been in serious breach of a specific regulation. The rule, handed down from the towers of wisdom, requires all consultants to clearly state in every report whether or not the consultant has ever worked on a specific project in any capacity in the past three years. (There is some debate about the three year rule - should you report for a five year period, lifetime, etc. One particularly inept consultant, the one who gets really excited about the rules and making sure they are obeyed and implemented, even suggested that if you mowed the lawn for someone involved in a specific project in 1987 then you are required disclose that in the report.) To be clear: I have written about this topic within the past three (or five) years.

I always include this statement in my letter of transmittal, right up front, so that my clients are clear about any past activities with respect to any given assignment. Turns out, that's wrong. The statement MUST be included in a certification (one portion of the report that bears signatures), not in the letter (which happens to be another portion of the report that bears signatures, but who's counting?). If a consultant does these things he or she is in complete compliance with regulations, unless a client requests that it be included in the letter.

Oh, and just to be sure, probably better make mention of your past experience with a particular assignment in the history section as well, as required by many clients and as interpreted by some of those who reside in the aforementioned tower of wisdom (And that particularly inept consultant, the one who gets really excited about the rules and making sure they are obeyed and implemented.). Also, best make sure that you describe any changes in your analysis and why you made said changes.

So, we now have the exact same sentence included in a single report in three separate places. Inclusion of this sentence in no way increases the reliability of a given report. It does not add to credibility to the analysis. It does not, in any way, have any impact on the conclusions derived for a given assignment. But it's in there, as required.

Certification: I, Thomas H. Humphreys, do hereby certify that I have written about this topic within the past three (or five) years. The specific date upon which I penned my last post pertaining to this peturbance was March 3, 2011. In my last discourse describing the disturbing detriments of too many directives I discussed the broad over-arching framework of too many rules. I still hold that opinion. This post, the one written today, is not a departure from my previous analysis, rather a more specific example of the broader problem, an elucidation of the sheer idiocy and voluminousness of regulations mandated by the committees that oversee a certain industry.

The Sartorial Sleuth - The Well Dressed PI

I think we’ve lost our way. Casual Fridays, corporate logos, and “authentic” hipsterism have shoved proper style to the back of the closet.

Sam Spade

There was a time when men dressed like men. Search for 1920s men’s style and you’ll see. Watch an episode of MadMen and you’ll see. Hell, even stream an episode of Rockford on NetFlix, you’ll see. Men used to dress like men. They had style.

The old-school gumshoes, creations of Dashiell Hammett and his contemporaries, dressed like gentlemen - though, it seems that everyone in that era dressed to impress. Let’s be clear, the clothes do not make a man a gentleman. We’ll just accept as a given that being a gentleman is the foundation upon which we’ll build our wardrobe.

I spend a lot of time with federal agents, detectives, and other private investigators. The feds understand: they apparently have a dress code. Police detectives sometimes get it (see this story about best dressed detectives). PIs are, quite possibly, the worst.

Still, in my cadre of private dicks, there’s a sense of professionalism that seems to demand a higher standard.

In the office and at leisure – The PI as Professional – Dolling up for clients

Client Meeting

Office - Appearance is key, first impressions paramount. I never go to a client meeting, deposition, or court without dressing for the occasion. My clients expect a certain style from me. I wear denim often and am completely comfortable going to meet a long term client sporting a pair of jeans, mid-tan shoes and belt, pressed oxford cloth shirt, and an odd jacket, maybe even a bow tie.

That’s as casual as I get. For depositions, a pair of gabardine slacks, likely grey, nice sport coat, and definitely a tie. Court demands a suit, sometimes three-piece, but always a suit.

The minutia

These are fairly easy ideas to grasp. It’s the minutia that makes a difference. Ties, pocket squares, cuff-links, these small items add color and elegance to any outfit. Ties should be classic and colorful. Ties should never have products or cartoons patterned across them, never. Pocket squares should not match the tie, rather complement it. Again, color and quality are of utmost importance. Cuff-links should be metal, simple, and match your belt buckle and watch.

Leisure – Those of you who read the [FIND] Investigations blog on a regular basis know my fondness for a hand-crafted cocktail and fine wine. I love cocktail hour. Here in Nashville, we usually head to The Patterson House or the Oak Bar for cocktail hour. It amazes me how people show up to a classy bar in shorts and t-shirt.

When we host our Bow Ties and Bourbon events once a month at The Patterson House, everyone is encouraged to dress. The wonderful thing is this: a table full of judges, lawyers, investigators all in their finery somehow makes the whole joint feel classier, like a throwback to yesteryear, gentlemen and ladies behaving as such.

Again, these are the faces we show in our capacity as professionals. The real fun starts when the work begins.

In the field – The PI on surveillance – blending in

Assignment – Surveillance

Location – New Orleans

Weather – Sweltering hot with turgid skies

Time – 9:00 PM – until

Conveyance – Foot mobile

This is where creativity and a sense of style allow the professional investigator to blend in perfectly. 

Pocket Square and Seersucker

Last month we traveled to NOLA for a bit of sub-rosa work. Our team costumed to match the surroundings. White linen pants and a seersucker jacket, with a rich red pocket square, allowed us to melt into the background at Galatoires, all the while observing our subject and documenting his activities. We strolled, in a classic front-and-follow maneuver, across Canal Street to the Sazerac Bar in the Roosevelt Hotel over on Baronne, never once drawing unwanted attention. We sidled up to the bar and continued our surveillance (unfortunate mocktails in hand), the subject completely unawares. 

It’s not always like this. Sometimes you have to get down and dirty (trash collectors uniform, hard hat, safety-vest), but it’s the urban neighborhood surveillance that allows us to have a bit of fun, look like we give a shit, and blend in at the same time.

This little exercise in styling a PI for a specific job is our introduction to a quarterly column under the Sartorial Sleuth heading. We’re going to call this tri-monthly exercise The Sartorial Sleuth, dressed for success(ful surveillance).

Innovation : Investigation - Open your mind

[FIND] Lexicon: Innovation: noun \ˌi-nə-ˈvā-shən\ 1 : the introduction of something new 2 : a new idea, method, or device

Harvard business professor and acclaimed author Clay Christensen leads the way in studies of innovation, says the latest issue of The Economist. He penned three books on the topic over the last 15 years: "The Innovator's Dilemma," "Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns," and "The Innovator's DNA: Mastering the Five Skills of Disruptive Innovators."

In the latter, Christensen cites five habits of mind that lead to disruptive innovation: associating, questioning, observing, networking, and experimenting.

Sounds a lot like the habits of mind required to be a solid investigator. Let's break it down:

Associating - Professional investigators, the ones with whom you would want to work, always seek to broaden their associations. When a new detective hangs her shingle, I try to reach out. There's always something to learn from another professional. From the obvious organizational associations (ACFE, AIIP, etc.) to the simple teaming up with another investigator (or company) to attack a problem, associating can lead you to new ideas and methods.

Questioning - This one is pretty obvious. We, as professional investigators, constantly question methods, practices, and approaches to problems. We question motives, actions, and behavior. Questioning our methods and practices, though, tends to lead to the highest return in innovation.

Observing - Again, this one is fairly self evident. We observe. Surveillance, research, study, all methods of observation that we employ on a daily basis. The best detectives, however, turn that methodical study of behavior on themselves and their competition as well as their subjects. Watch how other people do their work. There's always something one can learn.

Networking - Networking is key to any business, any endeavor, any social exercise. When traveling, [FIND] Investigations staff is encouraged to look up a local PI with whom to share a coffee or a cocktail. It's almost mandatory. The network of friends, investigators, LEO, and researchers we've built over the years is our primary source for help, referrals, and new ideas. I could go on and on on this point, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. - all fine tools, implements that allow us to grow a superficial network of "friends." But when it comes to people to whom you can turn for advice, direction, and assistance, a web of actual people is invaluable. With that web of real people, social networking tools (FB, TW, LI, etc.) become a way to maintain those relationships.

Experimenting - Always, always, always try new things. Sometimes you may push the envelope more than you should (maybe even face a criminal trespass charge along the way), but without trying new ideas, new methods, new tools, you will never grow as an investigator. I've heard way too many people in this profession say, "That's just how we've always done it." Well, the day I utter that phrase, please shoot me. [FIND] Investigations likes to partner with tech geeks and information nerds, anything to shift the POV and see a problem in a new way. Processes are good, standards are necessary, but if you never push, you'll never excel and certainly never be an innovator.

Final thoughts - Disruptive innovation, that leap or step forward that makes a "ding in the universe" requires an open mind. All of the traits detailed by Christensen hint at one basic tenet: keep your mind open.

[FIND] Vice - Ratchet up Your Adrenaline with Sam Capra

Latest offering from Jeff Abbott

Sam Capra, the unassuming hero of Adrenaline, looks like Joe-anybody, doesn't stand out in a crowd. He's a wiry character, standing six feet tall, with dirty blond hair and blue eyes. And he runs Parkour for fun and fitness, vaulting himself over and up walls with grace and ease. He also, within one week of being introduced, propelled himself onto several best seller lists, 23 in the New York Times, 20 in Publishers Weekly, two of the standards in the industry.

We caught up with internationally acclaimed author Jeff Abbott (Capra's creator) between book signings and interviews on Friday afternoon last week. Abbott says of Capra, "Sometimes, because he's sort of trim and not a big bulky guy, the bad guys underestimate him.

"[Sam] can't handle everything that he gets into, that would be pretty boring," says Abbott. But he can hold his own.

Abbott has crafted in Capra a new kind of hero. He's good looking, but he doesn't know it. He's young for the genre, only 25 years old. But in spite of his youth, he's quick of wit, fleet of feet, and, thanks to world-traveling aid-worker parents and extensive CIA training, he's - well - extremely capable.

In one scene from Adrenaline, Abbott's 12th book, our hero Sam Capra faces a crew of roughnecks in a bar fight. "His first thought is you actually take the biggest guy down first," Abbott says, "That will affect the emotions of the others. This may not be true, but he's - that's how he's thinking -  strategically." That's about what one would expect from a recently defrocked CIA operative: efficient, thoughtful,  strategic - extremely capable.

Mr. Capra, in the course of this first-in-a-series novel, comes into ownership of a number of bars around the globe. While he's not prone to vice, Capra (like so many spies and PIs) savors a fine cocktail. Upon entering one of his newly acquired watering holes for the first time, Abbott says. "[Sam's] happy to see that they are mixing the cocktails with care."

So I think it's safe to say that were Capra to own a bar in Nashville, it would likely be The Patterson House, where they, as Abbot would say, "know what they are doing." For the [FIND] Vice cocktail pairing—this month with our newly introduced action hero, Sam Capra—James Hensley has lent us one of his favorite, hand-crafted summer drinks.

The Montgomery Fizz

2          oz        Tanqueray

1/8       oz        La Muse Vert Absinthe

3/4       oz        Fresh lime juice

3/4       oz        Ginger syrup

2                      sprigs of mint

1                      Splash of tonic water and club soda

Bruise the mint in the bottom of a mixing tin and then add the other ingredients. Shake briefly and strain into a collins glass filled with ice. Top with a splash of tonic water and club soda. Garnish with a mint sprig and a piece of ginger candy.

*Two things you need to do right now: Pick up a copy of Adrenaline, by Jeff Abbott and drop by The Patterson House for a Montgomery Fizz. You'll be glad on both counts.