Those Pesky Inconsistencies
One claim that police investigators when they insist they have the right person is that the suspect is inconsistent with statements and answers. During trials, Prosecutors emphasize the idea that inconsistencies took place and emphasize the idea that inconsistencies means deceptions.
During the show cause hearing on 07 November, 2008, the Apache County Attorney made his case that there was an eight‑year‑old killer in St. Johns, Arizona. He led St. Johns Police Department (SJPD) Detective Debbie Neckel with questions about the interrogation that Neckel and Apache County Commander Matrese (Theresa) Avila performed on 06 November, 2008, when the two adults guided the child into making confusing statements.
The Prosecutor asked, “…and the story changed?” and Neckel answered yes. Of course, no one on the State’s side mentioned the consistencies of the child’s statements. They did not address the child’s adamant denials that he shot anyone. They did not address his description of a car driving from the scene.
Analysis of the law enforcement people involved here, and their inconsistencies are interesting. These inconsistencies are far worse than those obtained by leading the child into false statements.
If we examine a few items involving Detective Neckel, problems arise.
The first matter is about who was on the scene first. Neckel reported that she rode to the scene with Sergeant Lucas Rodriguez and they both arrived at 5:09 P.M. That is corroborated by Rodriguez’s report. It does seem a bit odd that they would arrive in the same squad car to investigate a homicide. But, that is a matter of policy for their department.
The Computer Assisted Dispatch (CAD) log shows Neckel was dispatched at 5:30 P.M. Neckel’s report explains the inconsistency without calling attention to it. In Supplemental Report #1, she wrote that she called the department office and asked the department administrative assistant to first drive to the scene to get Neckel’s squad car keys and then return to the department and return with Neckel’s police vehicle.
There was an oddity in Neckel’s report. She noted that she saw her husband arrive home “at this time.” I am concerned that police training in the United States does not teach the principles of good technical writing and many reports suffer from sins of omission and extraneous information as well as a bias in interpreting evidence. Here, Neckel added a statement that had nothing to do with the investigation. Indeed, she did not record the time.
The report of the Chief of Police, Roy Melnick, Supplemental Report #4, stated that Neckel called him at 5:15 P.M. He did not report seeing Neckel at the scene. He wrote that he obtained six written witness reports that he forwarded to Neckel.
Neckel wrote in supplemental report #1 that she informed Chief Melnick of a witness statement and that Melnick took a written statement from that person. During her testimony at the detention hearing on 7 November, 2008, she testified that she recorded that statement and she obtained the written statement.
The Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) later became involved in the case at the request of the St. Johns Police Department and the Apache County Attorney’s Office. Detective David Cates of the DPS wrote in a report dated 01/07/2009 that Rodriguez stated that he was the first SJPD officer to arrive on the scene about 5:09 P.M. Rodriguez then stated that “Avila, Neckel, and Jones arrived at the scene.” The CAD report gives the arrival times as 17:22 for Avila; 17:25 for Jones, and 17:30 for Neckel. All parties were present at this meeting, but no one issued a correction.
Rodriguez also reported that he contacted Chief Melnick when he saw the body outside the home. He entered the home and discovered the second body. A paramedic arrived and Melnick arrived. After Melnick and Rodriguez cleared the house, the other three officers arrived.
There may be good explanations for discrepancies regarding Neckel’s timing and placement. But, this is the kind of inconsistency that undermines the credibility of law enforcement and can lead to lost prosecutions.
More serious is the presentations that Neckel made of herself. This started in her maneuvering to get the child suspect for interrogation. In her Supplemental Report #7 dated 11/18/2009, she wrote about taking the child’s clothing for evidence although she claimed the child was not a suspect. At a department meeting that morning, though, the concept that the child was the perpetrator was main among the possibilities. And, it was Neckel who introduced the gunpowder theme during the interrogation.
When she and Avila met with the child’s grandfather, Neckel stated she had “two years experience interviewing children.” Her job description before promotion to detective was school liaison officer in the junior high school. She had no training in conducting forensic interviews of children.
At the detention hearing, she stated that her involvement with children was dealing with fist fights.
When she introduced the gunpowder residue theme during the interrogation, she interpreted the boy’s answer as evasion. He simply explained that when guns are fired that there is a smoke cloud. This is often seen in movies and on television as a device showing a gun is fired. Smokeless powder does not make good drama. Neither Neckel nor Avila considered this alternative since they had already taken his clothing as evidence. Both the interrogators wanted his blood. Avila supposedly had interrogation training, but admitted during discovery that there was no intent to verify truthfulness.
At the discovery hearing on 11/25/2009, Neckel changed her qualifications again. Now, she testified that she had been involved mainly in sex crimes. “… I did a lot of detective and investigative work, I just didn’t have the [detective] title. Um, I handle mostly sex crimes.”
So, Neckel had started claiming expertise in interviewing child suspects, to breaking up fist fights, to being a major sex crime investigator. This is a major inconsistency.
I wonder how the police training protocols ignore the concepts of consistency in job descriptions and the need to be honest always. A good defense attorney could make mincemeat of persons with this kind of inconsistency.
Neckel is not the only officer with major consistency problems. This is due to poor training and sloppy management.
This can be used as an opportunity to evaluate and improve police training and protocols. There may be tendencies toward defensive denials, but that will only repeat the problems and the criticisms. After all, there are dangerous persons who need to be apprehended and convicted. But, with the kind of work done by the Apache County Attorney and the St. Johns Police Department, the emphasis was on notoriety rather than good solid police work.
by Brian McCorkle
in category St. Johns Arizona Double Homicide
