Comparing Paper Forms, Labelled Buttons and Speech Recognition - Essay Example

www.academia-research.com Sumanta Sanyal d: 01/05/07 Report: Recovering Evidence from a Crime Scene: Comparing Paper Forms, Labelled Buttons andSpeech Recognition Summary The prime intention of this paper is to investigate how a crime scene investigation (CSI) can elicit reliable and integral data from the crime environment so that an irrefutable warrant can be derived from it. This is on the assumption that there is, in the first place, such reliable and integral association inherent between the data and criminal act. This last is to preclude unfortunate miscarriage of justice. It is found that the warrant has to be irrefutable so that the subsequent claim made on the basis of the data can stand the test of an adversarial judicial system where defendant parties are eager to disprove the prosecuting side. In particular, the paper considers three data sets - paper forms, labelled buttons and speech recognition data - and investigates how comparative study of these found at a crime scene can assist in the preparation of the irrefutable warrant. It uses a methodology based on the advice of experts and one that is not very singular in itself. It finds that such methodology, though not exclusive to the paper, is sufficient basis for establishing the three data sets - paper forms, labelled buttons and speech recognition data - as reliable and integral enough to subsequently establish an irrefutable warrant. It is true that it is not always to be expected that these data sets alone can be the sole basis for such warrants but it is firmly established that these data sets, in association with other data sets found on the crime scene, if comprehensive enough, can certainly assist most admirably in establishing an irrefutable warrant, establishing an irrefutable basis for the exhibits and the subsequent claim. Contents: Introduction Rationale Review Hypothesis Method Results Conclusions Reference Introduction Rationale: This paper investigates how evidence collected from a crime scene can be successfully collated to point at the criminal/criminals and get positive conviction where such convection is justified under existing laws. When an incident that can be considered as criminal under existing laws is reported an investigation proceeds in which an examination of the crime scene commences and includes such diverse activities as selection, collection and analysis of evidence and this evidence is subsequently related to person/persons in such a manner that they stand accused of the aforementioned criminal act. Essentially, a claim is made based on the data (evidence) that argumentatively proposes to prosecute the person/persons that stand accused by it (Baber et al, 2006). During crime scene investigations, crime scene investigators collect data (also known as exhibits in legal parlance) in an ideally objective and unbiased manner. In an adversarial legal system where defendant parties contend claims brought by prosecutors vigorously it is highly essential that such data be of high integrity and reliability if the claim is expected to fructify into a conviction (Baber et al, 2006). This integrity and reliability of data is technically termed as warrant and if there is any serious doubt over the warrant there is subsequently serious doubt over the legitimacy of either the data or the claim, both of which can be called into question on the basis of a dubious warrant (Baber et al, 2006). In the adversarial legal system, the defendant parties will strive to disprove the warrant in three manners: 1. discredit the manner in which the exhibit was collected or analysed (point doubt at the warrant); 2. seek discredit over the very nature of the exhibit (point doubt at the data); and 3. seek discredit over the interpretation presented (point doubt at the claim). (Baber et al, 2006) Thus, it is essential that the warrant be absolutely foolproof so that none of these defensive techniques can prove successful. It is always essential that such integrity and reliability is the very nature of the data so that no false convictions can result. It is now established that a large part of the irrefutability of the claim depends upon the reliability and integrity of the data - termed the warrant. Thus, now the motive in preparing this paper is clear - it is to investigate how such reliability and integrity can be inculcated into the data collected from a crime scene - specifically in context of paper forms, labelled buttons and speech recognition with the preferred analytical method being comparative study for all three data sets. With this in view the paper now proceeds to conduct a literature review through which such comparative study can be elucidated. Review: The paper shall not yet directly proceed to the comparative study methodology of the three data sets but, instead, it will review how the crime scene - as an environment - can prove to be a productive resource for crime scene investigators. Crime scene investigation is largely a cognitive study in the sense that investigators use their cognitive faculties (their senses and perception primarily) to make meaning out of what they perceive in the crime scene - the crime environment. It is well to understand that "people make 'sense' of the world ..by accepting stimuli from their environment, including others around them, and interpreting what these stimuli mean. The subsequent actions, including probing the environment, lead to additional stimuli, which must provide meaningful affordances to grab attention, and subsequent processing. Human and non-human agents must be attuned to relevant affordances in order to interpret them, to act based on them, and to probe for additional stimuli (Nosek 2001:219) (Source: Baber et al, 2006: 357-385). Such a large quote is put in here to better demonstrate that, innately, a crime scene environment is essentially affording and it should be taken as such by crime scene investigators (Baber et al, 2006: 357-385). With this mindset in position investigators must proceed to differentiate the environment in two sets of components - those that relate directly to the criminal act and those that are merely there in the environment without being of any meaning to the criminal act (Baber et al, 2006: 357-385). It is also understood that such a mindset can prepare the investigator to expect certain components in the environment that may lead directly to the criminal act. It is not only that the investigator is expected to make do with only what is immediately apparent in the environment for a successful CSI (crime scene investigation) (Baber et al, 2006: 357-385).. Thus, for example, while, in an act of assault on an old lady in which a couple of buttons have been torn off the lady's coat, it is essential that the investigators immediately derive the conclusion that the buttons are in the vicinity of the crime - that they may not be immediately apparent in the crime environment but they may be lying somewhere within that environment hidden from the human eye. It may transpire that, in the course of searching for the buttons that came off the lady's coat, another set of buttons are recovered from under a cupboard in the crime scene. This set is labelled but it certainly does not belong to the old lady's coat. The investigator may be logically led to believe that this set belongs to the criminal and the labels may provide an adequate lead to the person's tailor, from where the investigation may proceed more speedily to apprehension and even eventual conviction. The above example may seem more fortuitous than is normally encountered by CS investigators in the daily course of their duties but it does demonstrate that investigators must not only make sense of what is apparent in the crime environment but also make meaningful guesses of what should be there. (Baber et al, 2006: 357-385). Thus, with both these apparent and possible components that relate directly and indirectly to the criminal act the investigator can successfully collect evidence (Baber et al, 2006: 357-385). The selection and collection process of the investigation is now complete. It is time to investigate how the collected evidence may be analysed. Analysis of the data collected is primarily a function of extracting association between the data and the criminal act (Baber et al, 2006: 357-385). It is essential to understand that, in today's complex world, there are usually many investigators with a diverse range of expertise involved in gathering and analysing data. There is also the probability that there is not one scene that has to be scrutinised but many. Thus, the final analysis is usually a collaborative attempt in which many investigators with diverse functionalities and expertise collate the data into a comprehensive whole that leads to the criminal act (Baber et al, 2006: 357-385). This final analysis, the association of the collected data with each other and other components of the criminal act including the crime scene, is the culmination of the investigation and it is interesting to note that the comparative study this paper is interested in studying is an integral part of this culmination. Thus, the paper ahs finally reached its objective and it is ready to hypothesise what it construes as legitimate warrant in lieu of paper forms, labelled buttons and speech recognition derived after suitable comparative analysis. Hypothesis: Comparative analyses, where necessary, of paper forms, labelled buttons and speech recognition data can yield a legitimate warrant that is irrefutable. Null Hypothesis: Comparative analyses, where necessary, of paper forms, labelled buttons and speech recognition data cannot yield a legitimate warrant that is irrefutable. Assumptions: 1. It is assumed that where there is no real association between the data sets - the paper forms, the labelled buttons and the speech recognition data - the above is automatically proved null. 2. It is also assumed that all three data sets had been selected, collected and preliminary analyses done on them in close adherence to the guidelines presented previously. Methodology The methodology may be used to compare patterns within the three data sets under survey here - paper forms, labelled buttons and speech recognition data. If definite association can be found between the data and the person believed to have committed the criminal act under investigation that person, who may already be in police custody or who may be identified by the comparative studies and be sought for apprehension, there is great likelihood that the integrity and reliability of the data - the warrant - is assured and a reliable claim can be filed before law. Paper forms: Paper documents found in the crime scene and believed to be in some manner connected with the criminal act are of vital importance to the case. This is so because not only is paper by its very chemical nature and manner of manufacture very characteristic of its kind but also a number of marks, whether human generated or otherwise, are distinctive enough to make the paper easily identifiable to its previous owner. Even blank paper has some distinguishable characteristics that can lead an investigator to either the believed perpetrator or to some other point in the crime that is of some interest to the case. Paper can also have three distinguishing features - handwritings, inks and stains. While the first two are results of deliberate human acts the third - stains - may be involuntary in origin but are as important as the other two. Analytical chromatography performed on inks and stains can disclose their distinct chemical nature and often lead to associative features paper with such inks and/or stains can be compared to others found at a relevant location, such as the accused residence or office (Egan et al, 2005). Handwriting is a highly distinguishing feature for humans. It varies distinctly individually with age, gender, even nationalities, cultures, geographic location of origin, etc. (Egan et al, 2005). Experts can distinguish easily between handwritings of different individuals and such evidence is usually acceptable before the law provided sufficient amount of such data is available at the crime scene. It is noteworthy that insufficient samples like a signature on a driver's license are not enough to allow an expert to judge accurately. There must be enough written words with enough distinguishing characteristics to allow the expert to associate the handwriting to an individual. It is not only the manner in which particular words are written that are characteristic of an individual but also other features such as word spacings, punctuations, etc. that experts look for and depend upon (Egan et al, 2005). Type-written or computer printed paper materials are also useful evidence because most machines develop distinguishing characteristics with usage over time and these can be used as a basis for comparison to associate materials found on the crime scene with personal items in the possession of accused persons or others of interest (Egan et al, 2005).. Thus, paper materials, with or without imprimaturs on them, can be very positive data after comparative analysis has been conducted on them and provide ample warrant for a claim. Labelled Buttons: In the case used as an example previously in this paper, the labelled buttons formed a very reliable basis for apprehending the criminal. Yet, in real life, even labelled buttons are not very easily associated with any one individual. This is because most items are mass manufactured presently and most labels are thus commonly found in the possession of many, affording little justification in associating such labels with any one person in particular. Yet, there has been many previous cases where the label on the button found at the crime scene, exactly as found in the example, have proved ample basis for reliable and integral data leading to an ample warrant for a claim. Speech Recognition Data: With the increase in electronic media speech recognition has become an important analytical tool in the hands of criminal investigators. Speech found recorded in possibly innumerable daily use devices like mobile phones, hand phone sets, recorders etc. can provide easy means of association between the crime and related persons. Speech recognition is a science in itself today and even short utterances and spoken sentences can provide ample pointers to the identities of persons believed to be in some manner associated with the crime. Spoken language has many characteristics that vary among persons of different nationalities, cultures, and other variant factors. Also, the manner in which each individual speaks can be distinguished by the individual's characteristic vocal sound patterns. There is sufficient equipment today to enable investigators to screen recorded speech data by tone, timbre and other sonic and acoustic characteristics and associate it with an individual so that reliable and integral data can be constituted out of it to commence with an irrefutable warrant. Results The methodology, if used in actual analyses, can enable investigators to provide reliable and integral evidence so that an irrefutable warrant can be served. There are a number of possibilities that may result from such reliable and integral data: 1. an apprehended person may in some manner be conclusively associated with the criminal act and this will definitely assist in the investigation; 2. the data may lead to the identification and subsequent apprehension of a person who is somehow associated with the criminal act; and 3. the data may be associated with other data in the investigation in some crucial manner and assist in the investigation. Conclusion The null hypothesis is discarded in favour of the positive one because comparative analyses of the three data sets under study here will definitely yield reliable and integral data from the three sets under study here. Thus, with the integrity and reliability of the exhibits assured, the prosecutors can establish a claim that can be expected to withstand any rigorous tests opposite parties, usually the defendants, set it to. It is also found that the data, after being established as reliable and integral, may not be sufficient in themselves to establish a claim but it can certainly assist very positively in the investigative process and later, may very well, in conjunction with other data found at the crime scene, enable such establishment of a well-founded claim. As before, it is assumed throughout that associations between the data sets and the criminal act are inherently there in the first place. References Baber, Chris, et al, Crime scene investigation as distributed cognition, From: Pragmatics and Cognition 14:2 (2006), 357-385, ISBN: 0929-0907, John Benjamins Publishing Company. Baber, Chris, et al, Supporting Crime Scene Investigation, 2006. Egan, James M., et al, Forensic Analysis of Black Ballpoint Pen Inks Using Capillary Electrophoresis, Forensic Science Communications, July 2005, Vol. 7, No. 3, Read More