What do you have?
2 offences confirmedBurglary of an occupied dwelling · F.S. 810.02(2)(a) ↗ · First-degree felony
Someone entered a home without permission, intending to commit an offense inside — and people were home.
Grand theft — motor vehicle · F.S. 812.014(2)(a) ↗
A vehicle was taken, and they meant to keep it from the owner.
Proposed from the file — confirm or correct(1 waiting)
Burglary of a dwellingpossible · F.S. 810.02(3) ↗
Someone entered a home without permission intending to commit an offense — nobody was home.
Because the file describes an entry: “pry”
Because the place is a dwelling: “residence”
⚠ This conflicts with Burglary of an occupied dwelling, which you already confirmed — they cannot both be true of the same act. Picking this one replaces it.
It's something else — pick the charge yourself
The machine reads; you classify. Every confirmation and correction is kept in the case record.
Burglary of an occupied dwelling
3/5 elements proven| Element | Key evidence | Status | Gap / conflict | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entering a dwelling | C7 pry marks V8 open door | ✓ Proven 2 sources | — | — |
| Owned or possessed by another | ✓ Proven single source — Initial Incident Report | — | — | |
| Intent to commit an offense within | C6 | ✓ Proven single source — Initial Incident Report | — | — |
| Dwelling occupied at the time of entry | C8 (911 + report) | ⚠ At risk | SAO profile prefers sworn statements — see | |
| Identity of the perpetrator | ✕ Gap | No ID established. Avenues open: Scorpion Leg, gray Nissan occupants. | — |
Grand theft — motor vehicle
3/4 elements proven| Element | Key evidence | Status | Gap / conflict | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taking of a motor vehicle | ✓ Proven 2 sources | — | — | |
| Value or classification | ✓ Proven single source — Initial Incident Report | — | — | |
| Intent to deprive | C6 | ✓ Proven single source — Telematics Response — Coastline Motors | — | — |
| Identity of the perpetrator | ✕ Gap | Same gap as burglary count. | — |
Devil's Advocate — competing hypotheses (ACH). Runs on every case; the misidentification theory is mandatory and cannot be deleted.
⚠ Confirmation-bias alarm
The initial theory (H2: Brisco) rests on prior-contact familiarity and description similarity — pattern-match, not discriminating evidence. Two cells now CONFLICT (timecard D8, receipt timeline). Recommend formally eliminating H2 or naming the evidence that would rehabilitate it.
| Claim | Targeted crew: "Scorpion Leg" + gray Nissan | Initial POI: Terrence Brisco | 🛡 Misidentification / unrelated noise |
|---|---|---|---|
| Victim heard a noise near the side gate around 9:00 PM. | · | · | S |
| A register receipt places activity at Shell #4419 at 21:47 (Exhibit 12). | S | C | · |
| Terrence Brisco was badge-clocked at the NW 79th St warehouse until 22:04. | · | C | · |
| A slim male with a neck tattoo, known as "Scorpion Leg," asked the victim about the Range Rover at a car wash on 27th. | S | · | · |
| A gray Nissan Altima with a temporary tag surveilled the residence and appeared at the Shell station at 21:44. | S | · | · |
| Vehicle telematics ceased reporting at 23:12:31 at NW 27th Ave & W Flagler St. | S | ? | S |
| The rear French door was defeated by prying near the strike plate. | S | · | · |
| The family was inside the dwelling for the duration of the entry. | · | · | · |
S supports · C conflicts · "·" neutral · ? unknown — the least-contradicted theory is not always the working theory, and this board says so plainly.
The defense's cross — generated before trial does it
“Your victim told two different times — 9:00 PM in his interview, yet your own exhibit says the activity you rely on happened at 9:47. Which is it, Detective?”
“You initially suspected Mr. Brisco. What documented evidence — not a hunch — moved you off him, and when?”
“No witness saw entry. Your occupancy element rests on the victim's own statements. Who else corroborates it under oath?”
“The "Scorpion Leg" name comes from one conversation at a car wash. You never identified this person, correct?”
Evidence that would separate the theories
Ferrell porch video 20:45–23:20 — separates H1 (late-window crew) from H3 (unrelated noise)
Shell pump-6 exterior video — faces/tag of Nissan occupants (H1)
Lab return on Exhibit 7 swabs — any DNA eliminates or implicates named persons