The polymorphism of crime scene investigation: An exploratory analysis of the influence of crime and forensic intelligence on decisions made by crime scene examiners

Abstract

A growing body of scientific literature recurrently indicates that crime and forensic intelligence influence how crime scene investigators make decisions in their practices. This study scrutinises further this intelligence-led crime scene examination view. It analyses results obtained from two questionnaires. Data have been collected from nine chiefs of Intelligence Units (IUs) and 73 Crime Scene Examiners (CSEs) working in forensic science units (FSUs) in the French speaking part of Switzerland (six cantonal police agencies). Four salient elements emerged: (1) the actual existence of communication channels between IUs and FSUs across the police agencies under consideration; (2) most CSEs take into account crime intelligence disseminated; (3) a differentiated, but significant use by CSEs in their daily practice of this kind of intelligence; (4) a probable deep influence of this kind of intelligence on the most concerned CSEs, specially in the selection of the type of material/trace to detect, collect, analyse and exploit. These results contribute to decipher the subtle dialectic articulating crime intelligence and crime scene investigation, and to express further the polymorph role of CSEs, beyond their most recognised input to the justice system. Indeed, they appear to be central, but implicit, stakeholders in intelligence-led style of policing.

Homicide or car accident: The case of the ‘guilty’ fibre

“…at autopsy. [7][8][9] This case report underlines the importance of crime scene inspection using a critical forensic approach, which is carried out by an expert forensic team during the investigation of the prosecutor. We describe a particular case of murder concealed and presented as a car accident.…”

Un modèle continu, non linéaire et collaboratif de l’enquête

“…Bien avant d'arriver sur la scène de crime, il développera déjà toute une série d'hypothèses -par exemple « c'est un cambriolage isolé » par opposition à « c'est un cambriolage qui s'inscrit dans une série de cambriolages d'entreprises qui a frappé récemment la région », ou encore « c'est une fraude à l'assurance, il n'y a pas eu véritablement de cambriolage ». Ces hypothèses initiales sont basées sur les informations obtenues au cours de la requête de service (la description faite par l'appelant à la police) et sur des connaissances générales de la criminalité principalement issues de la formation, de l'expérience, du renseignement sur l'environnement criminel actuel et, plus généralement, des savoirs criminologiques (Resnikoff, Ribaux, Baylon, Jendly et Rossy, 2015). À son arrivée sur place, l'enquêteur sera tenté d'évaluer ces hypothèses initiales, par exemple en examinant les sols à la recherche de traces de chaussures n'appartenant pas aux occupants légitimes des lieux, ou en examinant les lignes conchoïdales sur les morceaux restants de la vitre brisée (Delémont, Esseiva, Jacquat et Martin, 2010).…”

Choice and Background Knowledge: How do Individuals Evaluate Accumulating Evidence in A Murder Scenario?

“…Background knowledge is very important to legal decision making. Most investigators use available evidence in combination with their own experience and knowledge to inform the best course of action for their investigation and decision making (Resnikoff et al, 2015). This, however, highlights that variations in knowledge may also lead to variations in individual's expectations as to what is relevant for consideration in their decision making process (Medin et al, 2003).…”

“…Criminal investigators and members of juries are subject to the heuristics and biases that are characteristic of the general public, and so must make greater efforts to minimize their impact on the evaluation of evidence when forming a judgment. Resnikoff, Ribaux, Baylon, Jendly, and Rossy (2015) observed "biases induced by a priori knowledge, as well as emotions … obviously have to be mitigated by complementary mechanisms" (p. 433). In order to be more rigorous, criminal investigators apply systems of evidence evaluation that aim to minimize the negative effects of ordinary human information processing predispositions.…”

“…Previous research has found that individuals use their background knowledge to inform their decision making (Resnikoff et al, 2015). It was predicted that participants in the high plausibility background knowledge condition would report higher initial guilt ratings compared to those in the low plausibility condition.…”