Crime Scene Investigator (29 page)

Early the next morning the SIO called for a briefing whilst we awaited the laboratory test results. It was during the meeting that I received the call from the lab. The blood was dog in origin and the bone was chicken with traces of dog saliva. Whatever our concerns, at least there was nothing to suggest that the woman and her child had been injured at the house. I carefully noted the exact words which the scientist relayed so that I could enter an immediate written report of the conversation into the enquiry system. This took the pressure off mounting an immediate full examination of the rest of the house which would have taken at least two days. The SIO listened to the news with great interest. Enquiries were continuing with officers near the original home of the woman. To my surprise the SIO then gave instructions for a full and immediate escalation of the scene investigation. It was as if the result we had meant nothing. After a few minutes I asked if we could take a break. In the interval I expressed my view that although there were concerns, a full scene investigation would not give any intelligence about the location of the missing persons. If they were found harmed or if a suspect was arrested we could immediately review and commence whatever examination was necessary. I agreed to put in place a contingency plan. He agreed to this and back in the briefing this was relayed. The scene would be protected but for the moment any further examination would be delayed. It was a pragmatic decision based on reviewing the answers we had received and what they were telling us.

Within a few hours, both the woman and her child had been found unharmed. The damage had simply been caused by her when she decided to vacate the house, which said something about her character which we hadn’t known. She had been in no danger on this occasion from her violent partner. The scene investigation had quickly answered the most important of questions and had helped the proper and efficient use of our resources. Our action and the concern everyone had shown her was right and proper, but she didn’t appreciate it. We were not to know the outcome until we had investigated it and I’m sure we would do it all again if faced with a similar case.

In another case the body of an elderly man was found in his first-floor bedsit flat. There was no forced entry but he had a large bloody head wound. There were traces of blood found throughout the flat. The post mortem revealed that a blow to the head had contributed to his death, but there was nothing to suggest that anyone else was involved. There was suspicion that some money was missing from the flat, but that was never proven, and any strange neighbour would have quickly entered any SIO’s sights as a potential suspect. The flat was extensively examined and re-examined over a period of three weeks. The medical history of the deceased revealed some dementia. A full review with SIO, scene investigators, forensic scientist and pathologist concluded that the death was accidental and not suspicious. The head wound was the result of a fall, which did not bleed immediately, but bled slowly and profusely over a period of time as he moved around the flat. There were no signs of violence, struggle, theft or other persons present at the time or following the injury. All the files and collected material were retained should any further information come to light. The coroner subsequently recorded an accidental death.

Reviews can record the fact that no crime has taken place, even if some acquaintances of the deceased have acted in a suspicious way. This may be a distraction but must not become a miscarriage of justice. I fear in some instances that is often the case. Reviews need to ask firm questions and not allow investigations to drift into untested assumptions.

If a suspect is in custody, a targeted and priority submission of items to the crime lab needs to take place. The purpose of this is to quickly answer key questions. Whose blood is on the suspect’s clothing? Is it the victim’s? Has there been a sexual assault? Can we identify whose DNA is on the victim? Is this the murder weapon? Does it contains the victim’s blood? Are there any fingermarks on it? Whose fingermarks are they?

A more detailed consideration of every piece of recovered material is also needed to consider what potential evidence they contain and how it should be further examined. This discussion usually involved the SIO or their deputy or other senior member of their team sitting down with me and a scene investigator and going through each item one by one. Any required further examinations and their priority were recorded so that they could be addressed in order.

Each answer should prompt a question: What does the answer mean? What other questions does it throw up? The questioning only stops when each line of enquiry has been exhausted within the priorities of the overall investigation.

Aspects of the crime scene investigations do not stop when an individual is charged. Preparation has to be made to prepare the exhibits which are going to be called to court. On some occasions the prosecution and defence may agree a list which they will want to see during the court process. In any event, there has to be discipline in ensuring that all the exhibits are accounted for and have a full record of their recovery and where they have been. There needs to be statements from all the scientists or specialists who have examined them and a clear record of their continuity. That is so that they can be accounted for at any moment of their history. It is imperative that their integrity is maintained and that this is recorded.

I recall arriving at the Central Criminal Court in London for what was expected to be a lengthy trial. The care and discipline with which the case was prepared and managed clearly impressed both the prosecutor and defence legal teams. When each item was called for and a request to open the sealed item made, I was on hand to ensure that this viewing by lawyers and jurors was recorded. At the end of the viewing, the item was resealed and I made additional notes in the exhibit register. Within a few days the defence team must have realised the extent of evidence against the defendant and he changed his plea to that of guilty.

In another case the integrity and continuity of the exhibits was vigorously tested by defence lawyers. This was so detailed that I took the step of resealing the items once they had been examined in the presence of the defence lawyer and insisted on his signature on the reseal since he, and he alone, had handled the item in open court. He felt duty bound to agree since his line of attack was on just who had handled the item. He was now one of the very few who had. The trial was later stopped because the jury had received information which they should not have had and the presiding judge realised that a fair trial was no longer possible. The re-trial was interesting. The thorough inspection of the integrity and continuity of the exhibits was once again questioned but it seemed to peter out when it came the specific and important item which now bore the defence lawyer’s signature. He must have forgotten or not realised the significance. ‘And whose signatures are on this seal?’ he asked. ‘Well, one is mine and the other is yours, sir,’ I replied. My notes could account for the time and place the item had been opened and resealed. The judge intervened to explain to the jury that the item had been opened at an earlier court proceeding, but the defence lawyer seemed to lose interest in challenging the integrity of the exhibits after that.

All this amounts to a hard, hard, slog which is never the view on those popular TV programmes. There is, however, more to come.

In the UK it is common practice in unsolved murder or other serious cases for the investigation to be reviewed by another senior investigator. This normally takes place at twenty-eight days. It is intended to give the case a fresh and independent view. The review is not to catch the original team out, though it may do that. Rather it challenges and tests the investigation, any assumptions and major lines of enquiry, investigative priorities and of course the forensic and scene investigations. The reviewing senior investigator may bring a small team, including a crime scene manager, to assist in the task.

I have been involved in cases which have been reviewed and I have reviewed others. In one review of a lengthy ongoing investigation the review team picked up a line of enquiry in which we were still waiting for a result. It involved the searching of finger marks found at the scene with our surrounding forces. We were part of a computerised fingerprint system, networked with thirty-four other forces, but some of our immediately neighbouring forces were not. So we had to send them copies of the marks and requested a search against their databases. When you are asking a colleague for a favour it is perhaps a little strange to check up that they have done it and to the standard you would expect. The review prompted us to check their search and speed up their reply. It resulted in identification. It also highlighted the need for a complete network solution.

In a case which I reviewed, a long investigation into the murder of a man had not resulted in any arrests for the crime. The body of the man had been found in a burnt-out car near the M25 motorway. Pat Crossan, the original senior investigating officer, was convinced that the man had been murdered at a certain house premises. Pat had ensured that Martin Gaule, the crime scene manager, examined every detail of the kitchen floor for signs of blood. Martin’s thorough investigation determined that there was no blood on the floor and that there had been no clean up – even the dirt found in crevices (which one might expect) was still present. Pat Crossan had moved on and his deputy, DCI John Beavis, had kept a hold on the case. He asked me to review it and I made a few recommendations. In the review we determined that one of the suspects had a commercial garage premises. At about the time of the murder he had painted a large part of the garage floor red. Perhaps by fortune, at about the time of my review he vacated the premises. The investigators did not want it to get out that they were interested in the premises, but we wanted to examine it and look under the paint. So we came up with the novel idea of actually renting the premises, under the guise of a new business venture. It also meant that we didn’t need a search warrant. This may be the first time the police actually rented a potential crime scene. The examination would need the scene investigators to work at night, as we would need a blackout to fully utilise the high-intensity light sources (HILS). This would be our first, non-destructive, examination, before any attempt was made to remove the paint. If the neighbours in the adjacent business premises were suspicious of our activity they didn’t mention it. There were some conversations, but the scene investigators made it clear we were just starting up a business. Our strange hours, kept after all the others had gone home, meant that we could work inside in the dark without suspicion. Any visit meant that we had to dress down. I remember the detective inspector giving me a good look over as I turned up in a scruffy pair of jeans and T-shirt, not my usual suited attire. Once inside the premises full crime scene standards were maintained. Martin Gaule, a crime scene manager, SOCO John Dowswell and Ken Williams the head of forensic photography worked at the premises for a number of nights. We called a forensic scientist to assist and give advice at the search scene as the examination continued. Blood was found but it did not match the victim, it matched one of the suspects. This information was useful because it tied up with other blood found at other premises and helped complete a picture. The review of the case did result in a conviction. I put forward Martin Gaule, John Dowswell and Ken Williams for commendations from the Chief Constable, which they duly received, and a letter of thanks to the forensic science laboratory for the expert support of their scientist.

The review process is extremely important and valuable if it is carried out in a professional and diplomatic manner. It tests assumptions and will always assist the investigation and its ultimate detection.

So even when court proceedings are completed and no matter what the outcome (a not guilty or guilty verdict) all the items should be resealed and notes made in an exhibit register or report. This is because of the possibility of appeals and potential investigation later. The integrity and continuity of all exhibits needs to be maintained until they are destroyed or returned to an owner. That too is the final record in the exhibit register. Although these actions, like many others, may be undertaken by other police personnel, it was my responsibility to ensure that the right advice was given and practice adopted to ensure the integrity of the scientific investigation of the crime. That was my role as a crime scene manager and I took it seriously.

At 9.15 am one Sunday morning in January, a few days into the New Year, William Ross reported his wife missing. Anna Ross had gone for a walk at four am in the morning to clear a head cold. She had not returned. He had driven around the area and phoned friends but he could not find her.

Bill and Anna lived with their infant daughter in a smart new house on the outskirts of Farnham, Surrey. When police officers attended the Ross home, Bill gave them a description of his wife including the stud earrings and matching necklace she was wearing. She suffered from the eating disorder bulimia and she would vomit after eating. He also describes how she had suffered abuse as a child and that she was ‘vulnerable’. When some questions were asked about the clothing she was wearing when she left the house, it appeared that it was only her nightdress. All her coats were still in the house. The outside temperature was below zero and there was a heavy frost.