On a Wednesday night during shift change I was briefed about something disturbing that happened during the previous shift. The shift prior had reported that a male had been caught taking photos up a woman's skirt on an escalator in the mall. He was caught by the female when she said she looked down and could see a cell phone camera in selfie mode on top of a newspaper between her legs. She screamed and confronted him which got the attention of a nearby guard. When the guard approached and started questing the male he stuck around and tried to talk his way out of it stating that it was a misunderstanding. He said his name was Peter and gave his contact information including his address and phone number in a bid to appear innocent. The police were called but Peter left prior to police arrival. The guard didn't witness the offense so he couldn't make an arrest or convince Peter to stay. The victim was upset with our response but I personally think the guard did a good job, acted within his purview and got all the information we needed to hand over to the police.

When the police arrived, they were given the information and video surveillance footage however the camera angle didn't show what happened on the escalator and only showed him stepping on behind her with a newspaper and phone. The police were apparently lukewarm about the incident concerned that they didn't have enough evidence for a search warrant and were worried that if they approached Peter he would delete everything.

Peter was an older man and apparently very well spoken, he was dressed nicely and conducted himself in a professional manor. He didn't seem nervous but more defensive when taking on the accusations. It becomes difficult not to believe a man who stuck around and gave his contact information when he didn't have to, but it's also difficult to explain why he had his phone camera in selfie mode on top of a newspaper and between a woman's legs as she alleged. It sounded like there was more to this.

As a private company, my employer doesn't really care what happens to Peter as a result of him breaking the law on the property. As long as he stays away our job is complete but sometimes certain situations warrant a bit more research and I am willing to stretch myself to do a good dead. None of my superiors would fault me for this.

Over the years I have become very good at video surveillance review, as a result I try to take the brunt of it since I genuinely enjoy it and tend to pick up information that others miss. I spent time with a great teacher at my previous job who taught me subtle things about how people move and look around which I still use to capture photos of people's faces. The other major thing I learned about and exploit heavily is patterns. People are creatures of habit and you can often find them repeating the same movement day after day. As humans, we become so focused on our comfort and routines that we will do pretty much anything to keep them, this puts you at risk of detection on camera. The rest of my experience is based on years of practice, I can usually review at 16x to find events that took seconds in real time and have spent upwards of 18 hours reviewing footage for a single event.

I always start from where the subject came from and moved too in the mall. This seems like a simple step but it becomes difficult when people don't move predictably or if there are gaps in your coverage. If a subject was walking through camera A and was due to appear in frame on camera B but there is gap in physical distance between cameras, if the subject doesn't continue to camera B it becomes extremely frustrating. The reasons are usually that the subject turned around and started heading back towards camera A or they stopped for a while between the cameras to talk to a person or on their phone, but for how long? And which way will they go once they start moving again? Now you have 2 cameras to watch for an undetermined amount of time until they reappear. They way to deal with this is via camera design however with a property as large as ours design becomes challenging and compromises need to made in order to balance affordability and practicality.

There is another reason why people may not move predictably, malice. When walking through a mall people may become distracted and wander to look for deals in shops but generally, they came from somewhere, they are going somewhere, and they walk with purpose. They may change directions sometimes but those directional changes appear natural and have purpose behind them. If someone does multiple 180 degree turns for seemingly no reason, they should be watched.

Prior to the incident Peter entered the mall from a nearby entrance. I knew this from the briefing because it was indicated by the guard who reviewed the video footage. Usually footage review would end there because how can you review an area which isn't covered? The secret is to watch 10 minutes of the entrance prior to him entering to see if he had just entered, or if he had re-entered. Sure enough, Peter could be seen exiting the property a few minutes prior to that. I traced him back to another escalator on the property where he could be seen riding it down but then he disappeared at the top. Frustrating, and after a few minutes I realized that he had gone up the escalator and then immediately down the escalator. This is not usual behaviour for someone who walks with purpose. Some people will run up and down stairs for exercise but the point of an escalator is to ride it. I found the reason quickly, Peter stepped onto the escalator behind a woman in a skirt, and in his hand? Newspaper and a cell phone.

This wasn't a onetime deal, he was a predator.

I traced him back as far as a I could and found that he arrived just at the start of the lunch rush and disappeared right near the end. I used this pattern to see if I could locate him on different days and sure enough, I had him doing the exact same thing, multiple times a day, multiple days in a row, for as far back as our video retention was archived. His MO was the same every single time, he would begin walking closely behind a female in a short skirt shortly before she got on the escalator and then would put his cell phone on top of his newspaper and ride up closely behind her. He would then either get off at the top and immediately take the escalator back down or go stand in the lobby for a minute looking at his phone and then go back.

Unfortunately, I had found this evidence but without victims it means that no crime had been committed. This is a tricky part of the legal system; you can take someone's car but if they don't report it stolen then you are not a thief. These women were victimized because of a choice in wardrobe by a man that they weren't even thinking about when they got dressed and worse, there wasn't much I could do for them.

So, what kind of man was Peter? I've learned over my years that big cities are made smaller by technology and you can find out anything about a person via the internet. A search of his cell phone number revealed that he belonged to a church in a different city where he was in charge of organizing women's retreats. This made me sick to my stomach as I could only imagine what went on behind closed doors when he got those women alone. I hoped that what I found would be enough.

I collected all the video I could and sent it to the detective constable in charge. My hope was to get the police enough evidence to pursue a search warrant for his electronics. There is no telling far he has gone and what he has saved over the years. This obviously wasn't his first time.

The DC thanked me for my effort but I never heard back so I have no idea what happened to Peter, at least he didn't come back to the property. It was another unsatisfying ending to an unnerving story.

What did I learn? - A.) Some people are so comfortable lying straight to your face that they will be polite, smile, and even give you their contact information. B.) Going to church does not make you a good person. C.) Good camera review is invaluable.