LSI Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation, Inc. | home

Osama bin Laden and the World Trade Center | Hamas and the World Trade Center | President Bush, Colin Powell, and the Missing Possessive Pronouns | Congressman Gary Condit's Interview

Congressman Gary Condit's Interview

The following observations on Connie Chung's interview with Congressman Gary Condit are provided to students of the LSI Course on Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN) technique solely for the purpose of continuing education. These points are meant to enable the student to compare his/her analysis to the way another SCAN analyst looks upon the same statement. This SCAN report is not be used for any other purpose.

At the beginning of the interview Connie Chung started with a series of specific questions:

The Specific Questions:

(1) CONNIE CHUNG: Congressman Condit, do you know what happened to Chandra Levy?

REP. GARY CONDIT: No, I do not.

(2) CHUNG: Did you have anything to do with her disappearance?

CONDIT: No, I didn't.

(3) CHUNG: Did you say anything or do anything that could have caused her to drop out of sight?

CONDIT: You know, Chandra and I never had a cross word.

(4) CHUNG: Do you have any idea if there was anyone who wanted to harm her?

CONDIT: No.

(5) CHUNG: Did you cause anyone to harm her?

CONDIT: No.

(6) CHUNG: Did you kill Chandra Levy?

CONDIT: I did not.

Please note that to question 3 the subject didn't say "no" or "I did not". Instead, the subject said the following: "You know, Chandra and I never had a cross word."

From the LSI workbook on SCAN:

"If The Subject Didn't Answer = The Subject Did!"

The Use of the phrase "You Know"

1.    "You know, Chandra and I never had a cross word."

2.    "Well, let me say that, that uh ... you know, this is sort of new to me. But when the polygraph issue came up ..."

3.    "And then uh ... you know, you're horrified, but at the same time, you're a parent, and you think there might be another side to this that's just a mistake."

4.    "But, you know the news media..."

5.    "You know Connie, I'm um puzzled..."

Generally speaking, the phrase "you know" is used when the subject needs some time to think. It also means that the interviewer has entered the subject's language, indicating that the subject is very aware of the interviewer's presence. The bottom line is that the phrase "you know" should be considered as a linguistic signal indicating some sensitivity at that point in the statement.

The Use of the Word "Never"

One should note that "never" is not as strong as "didn't". This means that the subject's denial in regard to specific question no. 3 is a weak denial.

The subject used the denial "never" also in the following instances:

1.    "Well, I don't know that she was in love with me. She never said so. And I was not in love with her."

    [Please notice that the subject didn't say the sentence, "and I never said so" after the subject said, "And I was not in love with her."]

2.    "I only knew Chandra Levy for five months. And in that five months' period, we never had a discussion about a future, about children, about marriage. Any of those items never came up in that five-month period."

3. CHUNG: Did you ever make promises to her?

CONDIT: Never.

4. CHUNG: Now when Mrs. Levy called you and said that her daughter was missing, and she asked you pointblank, she says, at a critical time in the investigation, as to whether or not you had an affair with her daughter, you answered, according to her, matter-of-factly, "No." Were you telling the truth?

    CONDIT:    I never lied to Mrs. Levy. Fact of the matter is that whole week I had several conversations with the Levys. Dr. Levy and Mrs. Levy. We talked about uh, several items in, in the case.

5.    a.    "But I never lied to Mrs. Levy at all."

    b.    "I never lied to Mrs. Levy."

6.    "I never, ever told anybody not to carry their identification.

7. CHUNG: But... regarding the relationship in and of itself, are you suggesting that Chandra Levy's aunt did not have the correct information, or that Chandra Levy herself had created this affair as a figment of her imagination?

CONDIT: I can only say I never had those conversations with Chandra.

8. "I never had those conversations. So I, I don't know where the aunt got that."

9. CHUNG: And during that meeting, during that uh... uh... occasion on that, on April 24th, did you two discuss the future of your relationship?

    CONDIT:    No, we had no discussion. We never had a cross word.

10.    "No, no Connie. We never had a cross word. It was simply about her travel plans, that she was talking about going back to California. She was real excited about uh... going through her ceremony at USC. So she was real upbeat."

11.    "(Overlap) Well, I thought I might ... I, I thought I might hear her about her travel plans. She might leave a message and say she was taking a train or she wasn't taking a train. I never heard that."

Communications with Chandra:

CHUNG: Did you talk to her... as a general rule, uh, often? Several times a...?

CONDIT: (Overlap) Oh yeah, several times a week.

CHUNG: Several times a week?

CONDIT: Yeah.

CHUNG: Not several times a day, every day?

CONDIT: Not several times a day every day.

CHUNG: And how often do you think she came to your... your apartment to visit you?

CONDIT: Well, I provided all those details to uh, the appropriate people, the law enforcement people. They have that. And uh, it would be uh... best not to get...

CHUNG: (Overlap) (Inaudible) forgive me, but... why are you reluctant to answer that question?

CONDIT: Because that's... that's provided to law enforcement and the people who are responsible for fi-, for finding Chandra Levy.

CHUNG: But I mean, if there was nothing wrong with it, why can't you say how many times she came to visit you?

CONDIT: Because if I say a time to you, I may be... well, I don't know the amount of time off the top of my head, but...

CHUNG: (Overlap) Could you give me a general idea?

CONDIT: But I, but we, but we have shared all that with law enforcement. And I think it's best that we not go into that. And out of respect for my family, and out of request from the Levy family, I just don't... can't go there.

The phone conversation on April 29:

CHUNG: After that, what was uh... what was the next conversation that you had with her? Did you... do you recall when your last conversation with her was?

CONDIT: I had a phone conversation with her on April the 29th, which lasted for about a minute. Uh...

CHUNG: Just a minute?

CONDIT: Uh, approximately a minute.

CHUNG: She had called you repeatedly on that date. Correct?

CONDIT: Well, no, that's not true...

CHUNG: Her phone records show that.

CONDIT: Well, that... I mean, she might have left a message. But you know, the news media reported that she made all these frantic calls. And that's just not correct.

CHUNG: But her phone records show that she called you repeatedly.

CONDIT: Her phone... she didn't make frantic phone calls to people. She may have placed a call to me. Uh, she had my voice machine, my voice uh... uh phone company voice answering machine. She may have called and left a message. But it doesn't indicate that I have a whole series of messages from her.

CHUNG: All right, during that conversation uh, did she, was she upset about anything? Did you say... "We need to break up, break up our friendship?" Anything like that?

CONDIT: No, no Connie. We never had a cross word. It was simply about her travel plans, that she was talking about going back to California. She was real excited about uh... going through her ceremony at USC. So she was real upbeat.

CHUNG: She wasn't upset about anything?

CONDIT: She wasn't upset about anything. She wasn't upset about losing her job. She, that, it was a little...

CHUNG: (Overlap) She wasn't?

CONDIT:    No, she was a little disappointed by it. But she... she had other plans and other hopes. And, and she... she took it very good.

Please notice the following:

1.    The subject said:

    "I had a phone conversation with her on April the 29th..."

    The word "with" indicates distance.

    Generally speaking, the distance reflected by the word does not have to be a conflict. For example, "I watched tv with my wife". In such a case, it is quite likely that the two were sitting together in front of the tv while only one of them watched tv.

    However, there are only two activities for which the presence of the word "with" would definitely indicate a conflict: "talking with" and "living with".

    In this case "a phone conversation with her" might indicate differences of opinion or a conflict.

2.    In response to the question: "All right, during that conversation uh, did she, was she upset about anything? Did you say... "We need to break up, break up our friendship?" Anything like that?"

    The subject said:

    "No, no Connie. We never had a cross word. It was simply about her travel plans, that she was talking about going back to California. She was real excited about uh... going through her ceremony at USC. So she was real upbeat."

    Again, the word "never" is not a strong denial; and the subject did not answer the question that was asked.

"Conversation" vs. "Discussion"

1.    "I only knew Chandra Levy for five months. And in that five months' period, we never had a discussion about a future, about children, about marriage. Any of those items never came up in that five-month period."

2.    "I never lied to Mrs. Levy. Fact of the matter is that whole week I had several conversations with the Levys. Dr. Levy and Mrs. Levy. We talked about uh, several items in, in the case."

3.    "And I'm sorry if she misunderstood uh, those conversations. But in those conversations, she made a lot of statements. My job was to console and do what I could do to be helpful. But I never lied to Mrs. Levy at all. I'm sorry if she misunderstood the conversations."

4.    "I'm not sure what conversation she was talking about."

5.    "Well, I can only say that I did not have those conversations with Chandra. And Chandra's not here to defend herself. So I don't know why the aunt would say that."

6.    "I can only say I never had those conversations with Chandra."

7.    "The conversations that you're suggesting that... there was going to be a future, we were going to get married, and that there were some kind of rules. I never had those conversations. So I, I don't know where the aunt got that."

8.    CHUNG:    And during that meeting, during that uh... uh... occasion on that, on April 24th, did you two discuss the future of your relationship?

    CONDIT:    No, we had no discussion. We never had a cross word.

9.    CHUNG:    Well... tell me something. Why would she come to your apartment? She's a single woman, you're a married man. Did she always come to your apartment to visit you?

    CONDIT:    I have people that have come to my apartment all the time. But she came to my apartment in (sic) that day to tell me that she had just lost her internship, uh, with the uh, Department of Justice. And that was the discussion we had that day.

10.    CHUNG:    After that, what was uh... what was the next conversation that you had with her? Did you... do you recall when your last conversation with her was?

    CONDIT:    I had a phone conversation with her on April the 29th, which lasted for about a minute. Uh...

11.    CHUNG:    Uh, did you speak with her again after April 29th?

    CONDIT:    Uh, no. April 29th was the last conversation.

Please notice the following:

1.    In points 2, 3, and 4 the subject used the word "conversation" to describe his communications with the Levys, Chandra's parents.

2.    In points 1, 8, and 9 the subject labeled his communications with Chandra as "discussion".

3.    Generally speaking, the word "discussion" indicates disagreement and conflict.

4.    In Points 1 and 8 the subject used the word "discussion" in reporting "what didn't happen".

5.    In point 8 the subject produced two different situations: a) "discussion" and b) "a cross word".

    One should note that while a "discussion" was strongly negated ("We had no discussion") the "cross word" was only weakly negated, using the word "never".

6.    In point 9 the subject said, "And that was the discussion we had that day."

    The word "that" specifies that particular day.

    Question: What were the discussions on other days?

    Please also note that the word "that" means far away. This means that the subject tried to distance himself from "that day".

7.    In point 11 the subject said that the "conversation" on April 29th was the last one. This does not rule out that there was a further "discussion" or other means of "speaking with her".

Chandra's Trip to California

CHUNG:    Well, after you had that conversation with her, you said it lasted only a minute, when did you expect to talk to her again?

CONDIT:    Well, she gave me the impression that she was going to take a train to California. So I assumed in the next few days she was going to take a train to California. So I might talk to her after she got to California, I might talk to her when she got back from California. It wasn't clear to me whether or not she was actually going to move to California, come back and try to find another job. Um, but Chandra was interested in working at the FBI. She was interested in working at the CIA, or NI-, NSA. Something like that. She was very interested in those areas. And so... the reason the, the Federal Prison Bureau uh, job was important to her, because she thought that was the stepping stone in getting into the FBI.

Earlier the subject said: "It was simply about her travel plans, that she was talking about going back to California."

Now the subject said:

"she gave me the impression that she was going to take a train to California. So I assumed in the next few days she was going to take a train to California."

Please notice that "She gave me the impression" is not the same as "She told me".

That means that the subject cannot actually say that Chandra said that she is going to take the train.

This is confirmed by the fact that in the next sentence the subject said, "So I assumed..."

"A Train" vs. "The Train"

The subject used the word "train" in the following:

1.    "Well, she gave me the impression that she was going to take a train to California. So I assumed in the next few days she was going to take a train to California."

2.    "She might leave a message and say she was taking a train or she wasn't taking a train."

3.    "I was concerned that she had not called me back. But uh ... but also just assumed that she had taken a train. And she told me the train was going to take four days."

Please notice that the subject six times mentioned the word "train". Five times he used the phrase "a train" while in only one point (point 3) he used the phrase "the train".

One should note that the phrase "the train" is only used in the sentence where the subject said what Chandra had "told" him. This would indicate that it is quite likely that the phrase "the train" is Chandra's language - the subject was actually quoting her. However, the phrase "a train" is the subject's own language.

One should take into consideration that Chandra might have told the subject that "the train" was going to take four days without telling him that she was going to take it. It might be that the fact that "the train" ride would take four days, was the reason for Chandra not to take "the train".

The Phone call after April 29

CHUNG: Uh, did you speak with her again after April 29th?

CONDIT: Uh, no. April 29th was the last conversation.

CHUNG: So you're saying that you didn't expect to hear from her for about a week?

CONDIT: Well, actually, I tried to call her, because I...

CHUNG: When did you try and call her?

CONDIT: I tried to call her probably the 30th or the 31st, or some time in that week.

CHUNG: Uh, there, there is no 31st. Uh... it's either the 30th or May first.

CONDIT: (Overlap) I mean, the 30th or May first. I ddi try to... well, maybe it was later in the week, because I had not heard from her.

CHUNG: Uh-huh. And... you were expecting to hear? You, did you, you just said that you weren't expecting to hear from her for a week?

CONDIT: (Overlap) Well, I thought I might... I, I thought I might hear her about her travel plans. She might leave a message and say she was taking a train or she wasn't taking a train. I never heard that.

CHUNG: So did you call her, you're saying, on the 29th?

CONDIT: (Overlap) Yes, I placed a call...

CHUNG: Or the 30th.

CONDIT: I, I placed a call on uh... sometime during the next few days, to try to find out what her travel plans were going to be.

CHUNG: And you called her apartment?

CONDIT: Yes, I left a... yes, left a message.

CHUNG: And uh... did she ever call you back?

CONDIT: No.

CHUNG: Were you concerned?

CONDIT: I was concerned that she had not called me back. But uh... but also just assumed that she had taken a train. And she told me the train was going to take four days.

CHUNG: You can't remember exactly when you called?

CONDIT: On the... ?

CHUNG: Yes, when you called again. When you called, was it the 30th? May first? Second, 3rd, 4th?

CONDIT: (Overlap) Well, it... it could've been... it could've been the first. It could've been the second. Somewhere in that time frame.

Repetition of pronouns

1.    "The conversations that you're suggesting that ... there was going to be a future, we were going to get married, and that there were some kind of rules. I never had those conversations. So I, I don't know where the aunt got that. "

2.    "Well, I'm, I'm confused if you're making reference to Chief Ramsey's latest comments."

3.    CHUNG:    So you're suggesting that the police didn't quite ask you the right questions (Inaudible)?

    CONDIT:(Overlap)     No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm, I'm suggesting that, that you're, you're going on unnamed sources of the third interview of people who were not even in the room.

4.    "Well, I thought I might ... I, I thought I might hear her about her travel plans. She might leave a message and say she was taking a train or she wasn't taking a train. I never heard that."

5.    "I, I placed a call on uh ... sometime during the next few days, to try to find out what her travel plans were going to be."

6.    "The watch box ... uh ... I, I ... I did not take anything out of the apartment before or after the search."

7.    "And I'm, I'm confused by the police chief's comment immediately after we take the polygraph test."

8.    "I, I'm trying to retain some privacy for my family and for their family."

9.    "I mean, I, I've made ... uh, all kinds of mistakes in my life, but I'm not going to go into details on this program about the mistakes that I've made in my life."

From the LSI workbook on SCAN:

Repetition of pronouns in the same place is a scale of anxiety. 2 pronouns are mild anxiety. 3-4 is moderate. 5-7 are extreme anxiety, usually found only in murder cases which are based on a deep emotional problem.

Please notice the following:

1.    Points 2, 3, and 7 deal with the subject's response to the police assertion that he did not cooperate with them.

2.    Points 4 and 5 deal with the subject's attempt to contact Chandra after April 29th.

3.    Point 6, which includes the only place in the interview with 3 repetitions of the pronoun "I", deals with the question of whether the subject took anything out of his apartment before the police search.

The Polygraph

CONDIT: (Overlap) The best in the country.

CHUNG: (Overlap) But why won't you take one... from the police?

CONDIT: (Overlap) We found the best in the country that... he trains the FBI agents who give the polygraph tests. And so we took the test. We passed the test. And his credibility is unchallenged by people in the industry. And I'm, I'm confused by the police chief's comment immediately after we take the polygraph test. He did not read the polygraph test. Uh, I think you'll find that people in the FBI now have seen the polygraph test, they can read the polygraph test, and it makes total sense to them. So we basically thought we were being helpful, just found the best guy we could find. And that's what we did. And I don't know if...

CHUNG: (Overlap) Why, why won't you cooperate with uh, the Levy family investigators? And why won't you take... if you, if you are guilty of no criminal wrongdoing, if you're not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing, why don't you take a polygraph test given by the police, and cooperate with Chandra Levy's...

CONDIT: (Overlap) But we've taken a polygraph test. And it, and it proves that I'm innocent. And it's by, it's by a... a guy who's one of the highest-regarded gentlemen in that field in the country.

The subject used the pronoun "we" instead of the pronoun "I".

Using the pronoun "we" violates the formula of "first person singular past tense". This formula establishes commitment on the part of the subject as to what happened. But, since there is no commitment, there is no "Total Belief".

Since the subject ran away from commitment to that part of the story, it should be considered as a sensitive point for the subject and is likely to be unreliable.

The Subject's Cooperation with the Police

Change of Pronouns

1.    "But I, but we, but we have shared all that with law enforcement. And I think it's best that we not go into that. And out of respect for my family, and out of request from the Levy family, I just don't ... can't go there."

2.    "And let me ... on the investigate-, the investigators with the Levys, um, we have offered information that we have on all the issues to the investigators. We have sent letters to them. They have not responded. Now I'm a little bit concerned about the sincerity of their requests, the investigators' requests, if they're not willing to take some of the information that we have, go through it and see what it is they need. Once they go through it, if there's something that we can be helpful with, we ... we're open to do that. But they need to be uh ... they, they need to at least show that they're really interested in ... finding out what we've already done, what's been said, what the investigation that we've been through says. And once they do that ... I, we, we're open to ... talk to them."

3.    "Well, the watch box, uh, I didn't take anything out of the ... my apartment. The search within ...my apartment..."

From the LSI workbook on SCAN:

Change of pronouns in the same sentence (for example "I, Oh, we...") already indicates that there might be deception in the statement.

Please notice the following:

1.    Point 1 deals with the subject's cooperation with the police while point 2 deals with subject's cooperation with the Levy family's investigators.

2.    Point 3 deals with the question if the subject took anything out of his apartment before the police search.

"House" vs. "Apartment"

The subject said:

1.    "I mean, it's real confusing, because a couple days after it was reported that Chandra Levy had been missing, after her father had called me here in California, two days later I had two detectives in my house in Washington, DC, and we have a 45-minute interview..."

2.    "I have people that have come to my apartment all the time."

3.    "But she came to my apartment in (sic) that day to tell me that she had just lost her internship, uh, with the uh, Department of Justice."

4.    "Dr. Levy called my house..."

5.    "Within two days I had detectives in my house, talking to me about (Inaudible)."

6.    "The watch box ... uh ... I, I ... I did not take anything out of the apartment before or after the search..."

7.    "Well, the watch box, uh, I didn't take anything out of the ... my apartment. The search within ...my apartment..."

8.    "Nothing came out of my apartment before the search or after the search."

Please notice the following:

1.    Point 4 is the only place in the interview in which the subject talked about his house in California. In the rest of the places the subject related to his residence in Washington, DC.

2.    In regard to his residence in DC the subject used the word "house" only in points 1 and 5 in conjunction with the presence of the detectives. The rest of interview the subject labeled it as an "apartment".

    The rarity of the word "house" in conjunction to the presence of the detectives should bring us to suspect that there might be deception present at this point in the statement.

3.    The use of the present tense in point 1, in regard to the first interview with the police.

    Using present tense violates the formula of "first person singular past tense". This formula establishes commitment on the part of the subject as to what happened. But, since there is no commitment, there is no "Total Belief".

    Since the subject ran away from commitment to that part of the story, it should be considered as a sensitive point for the subject and is likely to be unreliable.

4.    Points 6 and 7 are only two places in which the subject used "the apartment" instead of "my apartment".

    Changing the language from "my" to "the" is an indication that there might be deception present in the story, starting from the point of the change.

    Please also notice the following:

    a.    Point 6 is in conjunction to the only place in the interview in which the subject tripled the use of the pronoun "I" = moderate anxiety.

    b.    Point 7 is in conjunction to a change in pronoun = signal of possible deception.

The Use of the Interviewer's Name - "Connie"

The subject mentioned the interviewer's name in the following places:

1.    CHUNG:    May I ask you, was it a sexual relationship?

    CONDIT:    Well, Connie, I've been married for 34 years, and I've not been a ... a perfect man, and I've made my share of mistakes. But um, out of respect for my family, and out of a specific request from the Levy family, I think it's best that I not get into those details uh, about Chandra Levy.

2.    CHUNG:    Indeed, uh, when the police questioned you on the first two occasions, you did not reveal the specifics of your relationship with Chandra Levy. Isn't that correct? It wasn't until the third interview with police that you revealed your relationship in its true manner.

    CONDIT:    In the first interview, I revealed every bit of the details about Chandra Levy. I answered every question that law enforcement asked me. In the second interview, I did the same thing. I answered every question that was asked of me, and released every detail to law enforcement. Now let me just say to you, Connie ...

3.    CHUNG:    The police even said that you impeded the investigation. They do not believe that you have fully cooperated. In fact, the word from the police is that your lack of candor impeded the investigation.

    CONDIT:    Well, I'm, I'm confused if you're making reference to Chief Ramsey's latest comments. Let me tell you, Connie, I have interviewed four times. I interviewed with the Metropolitan police department. I've interviewed a second time with the Metropolitan police department and the commander. I interviewed with the Department of Justice, the federal prosecutor, also with the MPD. I interviewed with the FBI. I allowed them to search my home, where they ripped up my carpet, they took the paint off the walls, they put the drains down the, the pipes.

4.    CHUNG:    All right, during that conversation uh, did she, was she upset about anything? Did you say ... "We need to break up, break up our friendship?" Anything like that?

    CONDIT:    No, no Connie. We never had a cross word. It was simply about her travel plans, that she was talking about going back to California. She was real excited about uh ... going through her ceremony at USC. So she was real upbeat.

5.    CHUNG:    Why, why would she make it up?

    CONDIT:    You know, Connie, I'm, uh ... I'm puzzled by uh, by people who take advantage of tragedy. A missing person that they don't even know.

6.    CHUNG:    But ... isn't much of what has happened partly your doing?

    CONDIT:    In what respect, Connie?

Please notice the following:

1.    Point 1 and 4 deal with the subject's relationship with Chandra Levy.

2.    Points 2 and 3 deal with the subject's cooperation with the police.

3.    Point 5 deals with the allegations of another woman of having a relationship with the subject.

4.    Point 6 deals with the subject's responsibility to the events.

    Please also notice that the subject answered this question with a question.

    From the LSI workbook on SCAN:

    "An answer which ends with a question mark indicates resistance, and this means that the question that preceded the answer is a sensitive one for the person."

    Please note that the subject answered with a question also in the following:

    CONDIT:    I was concerned that she had not called me back. But uh ... but also just assumed that she had taken a train. And she told me the train was going to take four days.

    CHUNG:    You can't remember exactly when you called?

    CONDIT:    On the ... ?

    CHUNG:    Yes, when you called again. When you called, was it the 30th? May first? Second, 3rd, 4th?

Changes in Language

CHUNG:    Indeed, uh, when the police questioned you on the first two occasions, you did not reveal the specifics of your relationship with Chandra Levy. Isn't that correct? It wasn't until the third interview with police that you revealed your relationship in its true manner.

CONDIT:    In the first interview, I revealed every bit of the details about Chandra Levy. I answered every question that law enforcement asked me. In the second interview, I did the same thing. I answered every question that was asked of me, and released every [*] detail to law enforcement. Now let me just say to you, Connie...

Please notice the following:

1.    The change in language from "revealed" to "released".

    "Change of language reflects a change in reality". This means that these two actions were different.

2.    While "revealed" is accompanied by "every bit of the details" the word "released" is accompanied by "every detail". The word "bit" is missing.

Summary:

1.    There are signals indicating lack of commitment in regard to Chandra's trip to California. It is quite likely that Chandra didn't say that she was taking "the train".

2.    The subject's characterization of his communication with Chandra on April 29th as a "discussion" indicates differences of opinion or a conflict.

3.    The subject's assertion that this communication on April 29th as the "last conversation" does not rule out further "discussions".

4.    There are signals of lack of commitment in regard to the subject taking his private polygraph examination.

5.    There are several signals of deception in regard to the subject's cooperation with the police.

Home Page