Western Australia Police Model for Crime Scene and Forensic Investigation - Case Study Example

Justice and Forensic Science Name: Institutional affiliation: The Western Australia Police Model for Crime Scene and Forensic Investigation Crime is an inevitable part of the society and it started during the time memorial. However, crime has evolved over time and has become more complex, which calls for new investigation techniques like forensic science. As a result, Western Australia Police has developed a model for crime scene and forensic investigation involving various institutions and experts who that there is justice in the country. The introduction of forensic science in the judicial system was a big place to the path of justice because it helps in cases where there are no witnesses to testify. Forensic evidence plays important role during the investigation and prosecution of various types of crime (Kloosterman et al., 2015). Even though forensic evidence has helped in bringing justice in many complex cases, inaccurate forensic analysis has also led to injustice in some cases in Western Australia (Oaklander, 2015). The essay, therefore, critically analyzes the model for crime scene and forensic investigation of the Western Australian Police, the injustices that have occurred in Australia due inaccurate forensic investigations like the case of Edward Splatt and the challenges facing the model with regard to forensic investigation. From the onset, it is important to understand the model for crime scene and forensic investigation used by the Western Australian Police. The model has four major stages, which are followed to ensure that the cause of the crime is identified and justice is done to both the victims and the perpetrators. The first stage is to ensure that the crime scene is safe and secured to avoid any further damage and no vital evidence is lost (“Western Australia Police”, 2009). It is the duty of Chem Centre in collaboration with the uniformed police to ensure that the crime scene is safe and secure. Chem Centre ensures that uniformed district police secure the crime scene. Western Australian (WA) Police District Forensic Investigation Officers or Forensic Division comes in after the place has been secured. Their work is to detect and preserve the evidence, including recovering and forwarding the evidence or exhibit for forensic analysis. In addition, either WA Police District Investigation Officers or Forensic Division records all the details gathered in the crime scene in the Forensic Register (“Western Australia Police”, 2009). WA Police District Investigation Officers handle volume crime while Forensic Division deals with volume crimes. However, in case of unexplained death, a forensic pathologist from PathWest Forensic Pathology is likely to attend the crime scene before the body is taken to mortuary for post mortem analysis (“Western Australia Police”, 2009). The most important forensic investigation is the forensic analysis and it forms the third stage of the model. There are three authorities that take part in forensic analysis to ensure that the analysis is accurate and above board. The authorities include PathWest Forensic Biology, WA Police Forensic Division, and ChemCenter (“Western Australia Police”, 2009). The three entities form the Forensic Analysis Coordination Team, which decides on the exhibit to analyze. PathWest Forensic Biology deals with DNA and other exhibits like hair and body fluids, including the identification of the victims in case of death. WA Police Forensic Division, on the other hand, analyzes fingerprints, blood patterns, and any other physical evidence found in the crime scene. Further, ChemCentre carries out physical evidence toxicology, including toxic drugs. In addition, ChemCentre follows up exhibits and it records the findings in the ForLIMS database (“Western Australia Police”, 2009). The exhibits can be used in the prosecution process if there is a need. The prosecution process involves WA Police investigators, the office of DPP, that prosecute the case, and State Coroner who carries out the inquest. Prosecution process is the last stage of the model. Despite the elaborative and excellent model for crime scene and forensic investigation, Australia has witnesses a number of injustices that come as a result of inaccurate forensic analysis or due to the negligence of officers who are involved in the investigation (Dioso-Villa, 2011). The cases of injustices that result from inaccurate forensic analysis or lack of proper investigation in Australia can be traced back in the year 1936 when Fredrick Lincoln McDermott was wrongfully sentenced to death for the murder of William Henry (Matthews, 2004). The Royal commission, after inquiry, found out that McDermott was innocent after he had served five years in prison (Bernie, 2001). So many such cases have happened in Australian, but the most peculiar one was the one involving Edward Splatt, which took place in 1977. The injustices that occur due to the inaccuracy of forensic investigation and analysis have raised a lot of questions about the competence of WA police force and the forensic investigators. Splatt was charged with the murder of Mrs. Rosa Simper that occurred on 2nd December, 1977. Even though the murderer was not known, the police narrowed down on Edward Splatt, a painter who was working with the Wilson’s Engineering Works (Nel, 2014). The factory was opposite Simper’s house and it was about six meters away from the house. The main reasons why Splatt attracted the attention of the police investigators was because particles of paints and metals were found on the bedsheet that Simper was lying after her murder (Mann, 2012). Further, a feather and bird seeds of green budgerigar were also on the same bedsheet. These seemed to be undisputed evidence because Splatt also kept budgerigar in his home. The results of the forensic analysis made the lead investigator, sergeant Cocks, and the court to conclude that Splatt was the murderer of Simper. Forensic analysts found out that the ratio of metal to paint was found at the window where the murderer entered and the bedsheet was at a constant ration of 75% paint and 25% metal (Mann, 2012). The same ration of paint to metal was found in the clothes that Splatt put on the same date Simper was killed. Cocks, therefore, concluded that Splatt killed Simper and his conclusion was based on the fact that the ration was as a result of Locard’s principle and that there was no possibility of the wind carrying paint and metal particles to Simper’s bedsheet (Nel, 2014). Cocks was further persuaded by the similarities that he found in Simpers bedsheet and Splatt clothing like seed endosperm, foam and fibers. The court adopted Cocks’ explanation and scientific evidence, and the jury made a unanimous decision that Splatt was killed Mrs. Simper in her house. Looking at the scientific evidence, one can easily be convinced that Splatt was the murderer of Simper. However, the Royal Commission came up with findings that contradicted the initial results by Cocks and the investigative team (Mann, 2012). This was after Stewart Cockburn, an investigative journalist with the Adelaide Advertiser wrote many articles about the Splatt innocence and the errors that occurred in the scientific that was presented by the investigative team led by sergeant Cocks (Littley, 2012). The government yielded to public pressure and it constituted Royal Commission to investigate the scientific errors that occurred during the forensic investigation and analysis. The commission came up with the findings that revealed some of the forensic errors that may undermine justice, as in the case of Splatt. The Royal Commission found out that the forensic evidence that was presented by the investigators in the Splatt case was not only unscientific, but they were also opinions and suggestions from police officers (Nel, 2014). According to the commission, the investigators only based their evidence on theory rather than scientific evidence. They pegged their findings on the similarities between the evidence found on Splatt’s clothes and home and that that was found on Simper’s bedsheet. However, scientific investigation is not based on the similarities, but rather on the dissimilarities (Edmond, 2002). Therefore, questions were raised of whether the due diligence was followed during the investigation. Some scientific investigators were found to be having dual role during the investigation, which could have interfered with the investigation because they could not pay close attention to the analysis (Mann, 2012). For instance, it was not easy to determine whether Sergeant Cocks was playing the role of police investigator or forensic scientist during the investigation. Therefore, the confusion of the role might have led to inaccurate forensic analysis. The Royal Commission, therefore, concluded that the scientific evidence that was presented during Splatt case was based on opinion and theory, and, therefore, not scientific (Mann, 2012). The inaccuracy in the forensic analysis should not take place in a well laid down model for crime scene and forensic investigation like in the case of Western Australian Police. The model shows that many competent authorities and personnel are involved in the forensic analysis and investigation of a crime (Ross, 2012). However, this was not replicated in Splatt case as it should have been done, which shows that there is some laxity in the investigation system that leads to injustices that can be prevented. It is important for the corned authorities to identify where the problem is in order to have a long term solution to the problem. Interestingly, sergeant Cocks who was leading the investigation on the Splatt’s case was also part of the team that was involved in the investigation and prosecution of the controversial Lindy Chamberlain case. Chamberlain case also involved a lot of injustices and inconsistencies due to inaccurate investigation and forensic analysis of the evidence that was used. Therefore, it is important to probe the experience and the qualification of officers that are involved in the forensic investigation. In addition, their ethics and code of conduct should also be interrogated (Giannelli, 2007). There has been general criticism about public safety training packages for those involved in forensic investigation. One major critics of the training is lack of proper balance between education programs and training programs. Forensic investigators require excellent knowledge and skills in order to carry out excellent investigation. However, this is not always the case because public safety and training packages is not discipline-based and, in most instances, assume and it does not provide necessary mathematical and scientific knowledge that is important in forensic investigation and analysis (Stoney & Stoney, 2015). In addition, the training packages only emphasizes on the understanding of the forensic concepts instead of focusing on the problem solving in forensic investigation and analysis. It is, therefore, important for concerned authorities to review the training of investigation experts, especially forensic scientists. Splatt case also points lack of managerial skills among senior investigators with a lot of experience. An officer may have a lot of experience, but he lacks the managerial skills, which are important in managing and handling evidence and the exhibits during investigation (Horne et al., 2015). Further, senior investigators also lead a group of several experts and it is important for them to manage the group well. Teamwork and professionalism are important in determining the accuracy of the investigation (Kelty, Julian & Ross, 2013). Sergeant Cocks might have had a lot of experience, but lacks managerial skills for a successful forensic investigation. It is important for investigation officers to understand and differentiate scientific observations and opinion of the investigation officers (Ubelaker, 2015). Clear understanding between the two concepts is important in preventing non-acceptable forensic systems. It is the role of forensic scientists to present to the court non-ambiguous and precise evidence of forensic analysis for the court to make a just and fair decision (Butler, 2015). However, it is not only the work of forensic analysts to ensure that justice is done to both the victims and the perpetrators. The jury and other legal representatives must also ensure that evidence and exhibit presented are admissible in the court of law (McQuiston-Surrett & Saks, 2009). It is the sole obligation of the legal system to ask relevant and detailed questions in probing the evidence (Brewer, 2015). Therefore, the admissibility of the forensic evidence and exhibits in Australian courts has also been a challenge and it has led to many injustices that have been witnessed in Western Australian for quite some time (Julian et al., 2011). The legal system has no definite criteria for accepting evidence that are generated from forensic analysis or scientific theories (Samarji, 2014). The legal systems have been accepting any evidence from forensic analysis as a religious fact so long as it is relevant to the judicial process and it is legally accepted. Consequently, inaccurate scientific evidence has been presented and accepted by various courts, which has led to injustices as in the case of Splatt. Courts, jury and lawyers have also led to the inconsistent and ineffective function in the inaccurate admissibility of the forensic evidence and exhibits. There have been poor standards in the admissibility of forensic evidence in the law courts (Howes, 2015). The courts have consistently given forensic experts opportunity to express opinions without considering the facts on their opinion. This has interfered with the justice in Australian (Kobilinsky & Sapse, 2012). In Splatt case, Cocks based his findings and evidence on his opinions and theory and the court did not take time to interrogate the facts behind the evidence and opinion. Generally, the model for crime scene and forensic investigation adopted by the WA Police has performed relatively well. Following the laid down process in crucial in ensuring that the correct exhibits are obtained at the scene and proper analysis is done. The most important part is to secure the crime scene and to use competent experts to analyze forensic evidence that are found at the crime scene. However, there are some internal challenges in the model that should be addressed to improve the performance of forensic investigators. There has been delay in acquiring forensic systems, which has interfered with the justice system. This may be due to the increased population, leading to increased demand for forensic evidence (Julian & Kelty, 2009). Therefore, more experts are needed to reduce the backlog of the cases that are still pending due to the delay in forensic analysis. Despite the increase in population, the forensic experts also have not been acting with speed to reduce the backlog. The system has also experienced insufficient coordination in decision making due to bureaucracy among the investigative institutions (Taroni et al., 2014). In most instances, the assigned investigators work independently without seeking the opinion of other experts (“National Institute of Forensic Science”, 2011). This might have led to the inaccuracy of forensic evidence that was presented in Splatt case. He relied on his own decision, opinion, and theories, which should not be the case because the model stipulates the roles of various experts who assist in decision-making (Jayaprakash, 2014). In conclusion, WA Police model for crime scene and forensic investigation is effective enough to ensure justice to all Australian if all that is contained in it is strictly followed. The agencies involved include ChemCentre, WA Police, WA Police District Forensic Officers, Forensic Division, and PathWeat Forensic Pathology. Despite an elaborate model, Australia has witnessed some injustices as a result of an inaccurate forensic investigation like what happened to Splatt. Sergeant Cocks presented inaccurate evidence to the court, which was later disputed by the Royal Commission after further investigation. However, the problem is not only with the investigators, but also the legal system due to the complexity and challenges surrounding the admissibility of forensic evidence in a court of law. There are three recommendations that are likely to improve the accuracy of forensic investigation in Australia. First, scientific process should be followed during forensic investigation and analysis and investigators should not be allowed to express their opinions and suggestions. Secondly, all forensic evidence should be scientific and only facts are presented during the process of prosecution. Finally, the law on the admissibility of forensic evidence should also be reviewed to ensure that only facts are presented before the jury. References Bernie, M. (2001). Australian Miscarriages of Justice. Retrieved from http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=nle Brewer, J. (2015). Forensic Science: New Developments, Perspectives and Advanced Technologies. Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Butler, J. M. (2015). U.S. Initiatives to strengthen forensic science & international standards in forensic DNA. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 18(New Trends in Forensic Science Genetics), 4-20. doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.06.008 Dioso-Villa, R. (2011). Without Legal Obligation: Compensating the Wrongfully Convicted in Australia. Alb. L. Rev., 75, 1329. Edmond, G. (2002). Constructing miscarriages of justice: Misunderstanding scientific evidence in high profile criminal appeals. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 22(1), 53-89. Giannelli, P. C. (2007). WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS AND FORENSIC SCIENCE: THE NEED TO REGULATE CRIME LABS. North Carolina Law Review, 86163 Horne, N., Edmondson, K., Harrison, M. & Scott., B. (2015). The applied use of forensic intelligence for community and organised crime. Australian Journal Of Forensic Sciences, 47(1), 72-82. doi:10.1080/00450618.2014.916755 Howes, L. M. (2015). Review: The communication of forensic science in the criminal justice system: A review of theory and proposed directions for research. Science & Justice, 55145-154. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2014.11.002 http://www.anzpaa.org.au/forensic-science Jayaprakash, P. T. (2014). On the limitations of probability in conceptualizing pattern matches in forensic science: Response to "On the value of probability for evaluating results of comparative pattern analysis" by Alex Biedermann and Franco Taroni [Forensic Sci. Int. 232 (2013) e44-e45]. Forensic Science International, 239e10-e11. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.03.025 Julian, R. D., Kelty, S. F., Roux, C., Woodman, P., Robertson, J., Davey, A., & ... White, R. (2011). What is the value of forensic science? An overview of the effectiveness of forensic science in the Australian criminal justice system project. Australian Journal Of Forensic Sciences, 43(4), 217. doi:10.1080/00450618.2011.61082 Julian, R., & Kelty, S. (2009). The Effectiveness of Forensic Science in Criminal Investigations. Australasian Policing, 1(2), 10. Kelty, S. F., Julian, R., & Ross, A. (2013). Dismantling the Justice Silos: Avoiding the pitfalls and reaping the benefits of information-sharing between forensic science, medicine and law. Forensic Science International, 230(Proceedings of the 6th European Academy of Forensic Science (EAFS) Conference, The Hague, 20 - 24 August 2012), 8-15. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.10.032 Kloosterman, A., Mapes, A., Geradts, Z., van Eijk, E., Koper, C., van den Berg, J., & ... van Asten, A. (2015). The interface between forensic science and technology: how technology could cause a paradigm shift in the role of forensic institutes in the criminal justice system. Philosophical Transactions Of The Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370(1674), 1-10. doi:10.1098/rstb.2014.0264 Kobilinsky, L. F., & Sapse, D. S. (2012). Forensic Science Advances and their Application in the Judiciary System. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Littley. B. (2012). 'Someone got away with murder’. The Advertiser. Retrieved from http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/someone-got-away-with-murder/story-fn6bqpju- 1226255699908 Mann, T. (2012). Flawed Forensics: The Splatt case and Stewart Cockburn. Retrieved from http://netk.net.au/Splatt/Splatt16.asp#TopOfPage Matthews, B. (2004). Australian miscarriages of justice. The National Legal Eagle, 10(1), 6. McQuiston-Surrett, D., & Saks, M. (2009). The Testimony of Forensic Identification Science: What Expert Witnesses Say and What Factfinders Hear. Law & Human Behavior (Springer Science & Business Media B.V.), 33(5), 436-453. doi:10.1007/s10979-008- 9169-1 Nel, L. (2014). Unjust Justice: The Case of Edward Splatt. Retrieved from https://prezi.com/5ea_f1-1sbms/unjust-justice-the-case-of-edward-splatt/ Oaklander, M. (2015). A Strange New Way to Solve Crimes. Time, 186(8), 44-47 Ross, A. (2012). Forensic science in Australia: Where does Australia sit in relation to trends and issues in the international context?. Current Issues In Criminal Justice, 24(1), [121]-129 Samarji, A. (2014). From an Australian Perspective to an International Discourse: Between Control and True Partnership, How Problematic is Law Enforcement Agencies’ Relationship with Forensic Science Centers?. Forensic Science Policy & Management, 5(1/2), 38. doi:10.1080/19409044.2014.929760 Stoney, D. A., & Stoney, P. L. (2015). Critical review of forensic trace evidence analysis and the need for a new approach. Forensic Science International, 251159-170. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.03.022 Taroni, F., Garbolino, P., Aitken, C. G., Biedermann, A., & Bozza, S. (2014). Bayesian Networks for Probabilistic Inference and Decision Analysis in Forensic Science. West Sussex: Wiley. Ubelaker, D. H. (2015). The Global Practice of Forensic Science. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley- Blackwell. Western Australia Police. (2009). Scientific Investigation Strategy 2009-2010. Retrieved from http://www.police.wa.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?link=PDFs%2FScientific_Investigation_Str ategy.pdf&tabid=1525 Western Australian Auditor General’s Report. (2013). Follow-up Performance Audit of Behind the Evidence: Forensic Services. Retrieved from https://audit.wa.gov.au/wp- content/uploads/report2013_08.pdf Read More