It is the major crime scene which brings together all the aspects of practice and resource. The start is often as not confused, very confused. There is emotion amongst the victims and witnesses and high activity amongst the first officers to respond. The priority is the preservation of life. It takes precedence over everything else. The next priority is detaining any offenders who are escaping from the scene. But preservation of life comes first.
As a crime scene investigator I often found myself picking up the pieces once the scene was secure and suspected offenders and injured victims had been taken away. The immediate goal was always to establish order, and to take control. Only then could a planned and balanced investigation take place. My role, however, evolved as the concept of crime scene investigation, and all its benefits, grew and was accepted and ultimately demanded by detectives. The progression was not only to manage my own actions, but those of other scene investigators and other police resources, even serving officers.
Crime scene management was a relatively new concept when I went to Surrey. One person with a crime scene, rather than a detective, background to control the investigation at the scene was a novelty. Of course there had been managers but they were often senior detectives and had no professional expertise in forensic investigation themselves. The model, where it existed up to then, used a detective, often in a laboratory liaison role, which I felt really wasn’t part of the continuum or escalation process which I have previously described. The old system had served the police service well, with many fine exponents from whom I had learnt a lot, but there was a need to change, to develop. In reality, I had been practising the role now recognised as crime scene manager since my time on the Flying Squad. The bedrock for my skills was that of an apprentice examining and investigating thousands of minor and major crime scenes. As a crime scene manager it was my role to plan and implement a process so that all the information, intelligence and evidence was recovered and communicated at the earliest opportunity to the senior investigating officer. As a crime scene manager, I was the link between the scene, the laboratory and the SIO.
On my arrival at a major crime scene I often found the first officers had taken step to preserve it and establish a cordon. My first actions were to confirm that all steps to preserve life had taken place. Sometimes this was obvious, but could never be assumed. Someone with medical training had to confirm death. Until that was done it was best to assume that the victim was alive and get medical assistance there and into the scene without any delay or hindrance.
The initial cordon would be decided by those first officers but it would be my second action to check it. I would review this and would either agree or revise, and in many cases outwardly extend it. Wider is always best as it can be reduced later. It is difficult but not impossible to extend a cordon and if there is a sound reason the earlier that move is taken the better. I would ensure that a log of those entering and leaving the scene (and the relevant times) had been started. The cordon would normally be protected by police officers to ensure that only those with a need or role in the scene could enter it. That need would be determined solely by me once I had taken responsibility for the scene. I also needed to backtrack and list those who entered and left the scene from its discovery. It could be necessary to examine them and possibly recover their clothing and footwear to eliminate this from anything which could subsequently be found in the scene examination.
The initial activity always involved listening, assessing the nature of the allegation and what staff resources were available to deal with the numbers of scenes (people, places, vehicles, objects) that had already been identified. My job was to ensure that these areas were addressed in order of priority. Where scene investigators were not available, clear instructions to other police personnel on how to preserve the subject until a scene investigator was available were given and they could be instructed to deal with the situation.
The actual crime scene could often wait, as it was more likely that people, and sometimes vehicles, required more immediate action.
All suspects have rights. They have a basic right to medical attention. They have a right of human dignity. In law, dependent on the jurisdiction, they have a right to refuse to be examined. In some jurisdictions (such as England and Wales) the right of the suspect to be examined can be overruled to allow the recovery of clothing and the taking of some samples, by force if necessary. These are limited to external, non-intimate areas, where it is believed that the evidence recovered has the ability to eliminate or implicate the suspect. Changes in legislation in the UK have allowed such examinations to take place. They protect the rights of the individual and also the investigator who is acting within the law.
Many years ago, before such laws were implemented I dealt with one offence which tested my morality and integrity. During a bungled armed robbery, shots were fired at police officers who had arrived quickly at the scene. A suspect was arrested in a violent struggle with the unarmed officers. Both the suspect and officers received injuries and were taken to hospital. On hearing the details of what had happened, I called a colleague to deal with the scene of the robbery. He was some way away. I made my way immediately to the hospital to deal with the suspect and hopefully undertake some examination which would eliminate or implicate his involvement in the robbery, and in particularly the discharge of a firearm. Thankfully, the firing of guns in the commission of crime was relatively rare both then and now. The particular examination I had in mind was to swab the hands and face of the suspect to recover any gunshot residues. This would indicate his proximity to a gun when it was fired. The particles in question are delicate and are quickly lost from the skin but can be retained longer on hair, such as exposed beards, moustaches and head hair.
At that time there were no rules allowing the taking of samples by force. If the suspect refused that was the end of the matter. Any evidence which would implicate or eliminate them would just be lost. On arriving at the Emergency Room of the hospital and seeing the condition of the suspect and hearing the manner of his arrest, it was clear that this man was not going to consent to any police examination. I knew some of the medical staff from previous visits. I can’t recall exactly what happened next but I take full responsibility for it. There was no way the suspect was going to allow anyone to swab his hands for evidence; a white coat was called for which I duly put on. I went into the cubicle and managed to swab one hand and was on the second before the suspect realised that this was not a normal medical procedure. Ducking a punch, I exited with what I had. It was underhand and I am neither proud nor ashamed, it just seemed the right thing to do. I was searching for the truth. I was prepared to recount my actions before a judge and take full responsibility if what I had done was deemed wrong in some aspect of the law. I was unsure whether I had broken the law. If I had I was ignorant (no defence, I know), but my goal was to seek the truth so that the court could decide. Nobody was going to get hurt (although the flailing right hand of the suspect once he realised what was going on could have injured me). The examination of the swab I had taken indicated that the suspect had been in close proximity to a gun when it was discharged. The suspect was found guilty of firing at the police officers. I was never called to give evidence, so never had to explain my actions. A few years later, after pressure from many of us, the law was changed to allow examinations such as the swabbing of external skin to take place even when the suspect refuses and even by force in the cases of serious crime such as shooting incidents.
Whether a suspect is in custody or not, some initial steps are naturally made at the scene whilst the initial confusion calms down. It helps establish order and control, so I would instruct a crime scene investigator or photographer to take external photographs of the scene.
I would begin to identify the type of search and the types of specialist who would be needed as information came to light. The very nature of investigation is that as the search takes place and other things are seen and found, further specialists may be needed. Good time management was always needed so that these specialists were called to enable them to get to the scene at a time when they were needed, otherwise there could be periods of delay with other specialists hanging around.
Part of my initial scene assessment needed to include any hazards or dangers which might affect the investigators and specialists who would go into the scene. I had to plan for this and included it in any briefing I gave. The right information and the right protective clothing and equipment are essential. Then there were the changeable conditions such as weather or lighting for the outside scene. You can’t change the weather or nightfall but you can prioritise examinations and protect key areas within the scene as well as bring in additional lighting.
Having listened to all the information available and most importantly the needs of the SIO, I had to agree the examination and search plan. The SIO always wants as much information as early as possible. This becomes more important when someone has been arrested from the outset. The clock will be ticking and there may be limits on how long the suspect can be detained before release. Any investigation of a suspected murder scene is likely to take a number of days. In any event the SIO will want to interview the suspect and will want as much information from us at the earliest opportunity so they are in a position of strength, not ignorance. If the right person has been detained they will know more about the scene than anyone else. The SIO will want to redress this balance.
I was responsible for briefing all the investigators and specialists about the scene and their role. I was always open for discussion but it is necessary to determine clear areas of responsibility and terms of reference for each member of the team.
As I said earlier, examining a whole major crime scene often takes days, so it is necessary to break it down into manageable parts and prioritise. A body is always an early and obvious priority. So a common approach path (CAP) would be cleared from the edge of the cordon to the body. The route of the CAP, however, may not be the most obvious. If it is the route any offender is known or likely to have taken, then the area and the items within in it may take a long time to clear. So, often another route, from another door or window when the scene is a building, would need to be found. This would ensure that the CAP to the body is established quickly. In woodland areas, rather than take an obvious path, it is often possible to cut a new direct path through the undergrowth, bypassing areas which will take a long time to examine.
Once a CAP was established to the body, I would ensure that an inner cordon around the body itself was made. This was not always defined with police scene tape as you might see on TV, but it may include a smaller room or defined area around the body. With the body in sight I would review with the team what examination steps would need to take place to allow the body to be removed for a post-mortem (PM) examination without jeopardising any evidence. It was common to call a specialist if something unusual was noticed. There are always time pressures: the SIO needs to know how the victim died and this may only be determined at PM. However, some things cannot be rushed and it must take whatever time it needs. The temperature close to the body will be taken and recorded at regular intervals. This is because it affects the temperature of the body, and it may be important in determining the time of death later. At this stage a medical examiner or pathologist often enters the scene to see the body where it lies. It is their job to identify the time, cause and manner of death. So their examination often starts at the scene. The steps to enable removal of the body are determined and the need to record and recover any immediately obvious material assessed. The taping for fibres or the removal of some or all items of clothing can also take place, if they are likely to be contaminated (for example with blood) when the body is placed in a body bag.
An area around the body is prepared for removal, the body placed in a bag and removed to the edge of the outer cordon. A scene investigator or other officer needs to accompany the body to the mortuary for continuity and identification.
Depending on the time pressures of the investigation, members of the crime scene team may need to accompany the body and assist the pathologist with the post-mortem examination. There is always a need for continuity of intelligence from the scene to the post mortem so at the very least the scene manager or a crime scene investigator needs to be present. Information about the time, cause and manner of death affects the remaining examination of the crime scene. Where time pressures are high or the weather at the scene is deteriorating, additional scene investigators are called to deal with the post mortem. In these cases I would ensure that one of the original scene investigators continues with the scene whilst the PM takes place.
The outcome of the time, cause and manner of death is always a milestone in the investigation. At the very least it gives the SIO and those planning to interview any suspect some important information. The SIO would often call for a ‘debrief’ on the investigation to date and I would need to be there. I would have to relay key information but it is the individual investigators who have been to the scene and seen the evidence first hand who need to communicate this personally. If at all feasible I would ensure as many as possible were present at the debrief. Information from other lines of enquiry and from other witnesses is often relayed at these debriefs, some evidence from the scene may, once relayed, identify the need for further work.
Up to that point the events have usually and adequately filled a busy day. With a suspect in custody, any current examination at the scene would have to continue no matter what the time of day or night. The original scene investigators would need to be rested and, if possible, the scene would be closed down or a small team left to undertake essential work. Whenever possible, I would allow the team to rest and return at a suitable time the following day. Before I took any break I would ensure that the investigators and specialists needed for the following day were booked and briefed so that there would be no delay when work resumed.
The next day would always start with a review and a continuation of the examination plan. Recovery and search in a planned manner would give way to sequential and possibly destructive evidence recovery techniques. The use of light sources and chemical methods ensures that all potential areas for finger marks and other evidence are examined and the search exhausted. Forensic evidence search takes in wider areas, towards the edge of the cordon. This is often undertaken by police search team officers and police dogs where the area is large. The SIO and I would need to ensure that the purpose of the search be identified, documented and communicated to all the search team members.
Once the examination plan for the scene was completed and reviewed by the team members, the final review would be undertaken by the SIO and me. This is to ensure that the investigation this far is to the SIO’s satisfaction and that nothing is missing. I would ask the SIO to sign for the completed scene and release it back to its owner. There is often a need to clean the scene of any blood, body fluids or hazardous materials used in the examination and this would now take place. In heavily contaminated scene this is best undertaken by contractors.
It is easy to get tired of the endless debriefs, but another will follow. This time it takes place where once again the available information from all the scenes, suspects, victims and vehicles is compared with any findings at the scene. The debriefings are long but are an important method of cross-reference. Each is an important milestone. The question ‘What do we have?’ must be asked.
A few days before Christmas we were confronted with a missing mother and child from a ‘safe house’. The woman had been the subject of domestic violence and was removed completely from her home area to the safety of a rural location. The fact that she was missing was concern enough. What increased the concern was that when a social worker visited the safe house, she could not get entry and noticed through the window a scene of damage. Police arrived and forced an entry. The house had few items of furniture, but what little was there was damaged. This included most of the fittings in the kitchen and bathroom, which were all heavily damaged. It looked deliberate. Concern for the woman and child continued when small amounts of blood were noticed smeared on the walls and also a small piece of bloodstained bone. I put in place a full crime scene examination from the outset. A team undertook all the steps I have already described and no time was wasted. I called a forensic scientist to interpret the blood (origin and distribution) and a pathologist to give advice on the bone. The key priorities were to identify if the blood and bone were of human origin. If they were we had a potential murder scene and two missing people. This would need large resources and probably the need for an investigation team to work through the Christmas holiday. The investigation would need lots of resources and police time and the financial bill would be high. Naturally, the cost was not important, but I hoped I could find a way of answering the question quickly so that if a full murder investigation was needed we would know by the following morning, Christmas Eve. The intense scene investigation continued late into the night before Christmas Eve. I arranged for the items to be examined overnight. It meant a trip of 150 miles to a specific laboratory by police motorcycle for the items and for the scientist to work through the night. Forensic science laboratories are not routinely open all night, so special arrangements had to be made. They promised an answer by nine am on Christmas Eve.
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.