Collecting Evidence
Evidence is vital and has to be concrete or supporting enough to withstand criticism in court of law. For the evidence to be admissible in court the procedures made in the vital first hours and approach onto the scene are important to gain all the relevant information and initial documentation of the scenes appearance, witness statements, victim testimony and identification, for the scene to be secured and for the evidence to be collected in the appropriate manner and within guidelines.
The procedures for the crime scene are to be correctly carried out and are now set in stone for all investigations therefore no evidence is missed nor exposed to other elements.
Procedure 1: FAO
The FAO or the first attending officer is called to the scene and is the first to determine if the scene needs additional support such as paramedics, coroner, firefighters etc. They then cordon off the scene to stop bystanders from entering and to reduce the risk of contamination. They also are aware of any evidence and its location and have a duty to protect the evidence from external evidence which would destroy or deplete the validity of the evidence. The call came from fellow driver John Kerr who had found Ms Storie on the side of the road by Michael Gregson alongside the morris minor. This role is important to preserve evidence before collectors and forensic scientists package and secure the evidence for analysis. By preserving the evidence it cannot be contaminated by intruders to the scene, nor can be contaminated or cross contaminated. The FAO calls for backup as they determine what the crime has been committed and depending on the severity calls the relevant investigators and people to come onto the scene.
The FAO in my case was handed a census form which Kerr had written his version of events on as his account of the crime as a witness to the scene, this document was lost and destroyed therefore couldn't be admissible in court as it wasn't physically there, but would have been questioned on in court as to the whereabouts of this said document. Also, the original testimony made by Storie was subsequently also missing and before her extensive surgery gave another statement and described Alphon's physical description of their assailant.
The video below shows John Kerr give his account of what he saw at the scene. Behind him and the interviewer is the white canopy which is explained further on. The police is also shown to wear normal uniform not any PPE also explained later on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPZuWAG0HJM
Procedure 2: Securing/cordoning the scene
Securing the scene is important to prevent bystanders, 'nosey neighbours', the family incase they rush into the scene and for unauthorised personnel to be prevented access to enter the scene, as it runs the risk of loss of evidence and the tainting of evidence. In my case due to the location and type of crime, they needed to seal the car, tracks, and surrounding areas due to the gun needing to be recovered from the scene. The scene in my case was cordoned off around the the body was under a white protective canopy, to protect them from elements and to wait for necessary services to collect and gather evidence and information. Gregstens body was taken to the morgue following his untimely death and discovery and his mistress Storie was taken to the local hospital to undergo surgery. As the media station ITN did television reports of the murder with the scene in the backdrop.
The below video link is Superintendent Morgan who had given a description of the assailant which follows the original testimony given by Storie which was destroyed and the second testimony given before surgery. Behind the Superintendent and the interviewer is the scene, shows a policemen who is standing in front of the scene, with cars allowed to pass through the scene of the crime. This opens up risks to contamination, skid marks which are from other vehicles and not the one in question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmN96CaWPLM
Procedure 3: PPE
Evidence is vital and has to be concrete or supporting enough to withstand criticism in court of law. For the evidence to be admissible in court the procedures made in the vital first hours and approach onto the scene are important to gain all the relevant information and initial documentation of the scenes appearance, witness statements, victim testimony and identification, for the scene to be secured and for the evidence to be collected in the appropriate manner and within guidelines.
The procedures for the crime scene are to be correctly carried out and are now set in stone for all investigations therefore no evidence is missed nor exposed to other elements.
Procedure 1: FAO
The FAO or the first attending officer is called to the scene and is the first to determine if the scene needs additional support such as paramedics, coroner, firefighters etc. They then cordon off the scene to stop bystanders from entering and to reduce the risk of contamination. They also are aware of any evidence and its location and have a duty to protect the evidence from external evidence which would destroy or deplete the validity of the evidence. The call came from fellow driver John Kerr who had found Ms Storie on the side of the road by Michael Gregson alongside the morris minor. This role is important to preserve evidence before collectors and forensic scientists package and secure the evidence for analysis. By preserving the evidence it cannot be contaminated by intruders to the scene, nor can be contaminated or cross contaminated. The FAO calls for backup as they determine what the crime has been committed and depending on the severity calls the relevant investigators and people to come onto the scene.
The FAO in my case was handed a census form which Kerr had written his version of events on as his account of the crime as a witness to the scene, this document was lost and destroyed therefore couldn't be admissible in court as it wasn't physically there, but would have been questioned on in court as to the whereabouts of this said document. Also, the original testimony made by Storie was subsequently also missing and before her extensive surgery gave another statement and described Alphon's physical description of their assailant.
The video below shows John Kerr give his account of what he saw at the scene. Behind him and the interviewer is the white canopy which is explained further on. The police is also shown to wear normal uniform not any PPE also explained later on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPZuWAG0HJM
Procedure 2: Securing/cordoning the scene
Securing the scene is important to prevent bystanders, 'nosey neighbours', the family incase they rush into the scene and for unauthorised personnel to be prevented access to enter the scene, as it runs the risk of loss of evidence and the tainting of evidence. In my case due to the location and type of crime, they needed to seal the car, tracks, and surrounding areas due to the gun needing to be recovered from the scene. The scene in my case was cordoned off around the the body was under a white protective canopy, to protect them from elements and to wait for necessary services to collect and gather evidence and information. Gregstens body was taken to the morgue following his untimely death and discovery and his mistress Storie was taken to the local hospital to undergo surgery. As the media station ITN did television reports of the murder with the scene in the backdrop.
The below video link is Superintendent Morgan who had given a description of the assailant which follows the original testimony given by Storie which was destroyed and the second testimony given before surgery. Behind the Superintendent and the interviewer is the scene, shows a policemen who is standing in front of the scene, with cars allowed to pass through the scene of the crime. This opens up risks to contamination, skid marks which are from other vehicles and not the one in question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmN96CaWPLM
Procedure 3: PPE
Hand in hand with the cordoning of the scene is the wearing of PPE or personal protective equipment. This equipment comprises of a full zip up soco suit, which includes a hood to keep potential hairs to cross contaminate with anything at the scene. A mask to prevent risk of saliva DNA (biological) evidence, and in high risk buildings and areas from asbestos, excessive dust but mainly as a barrier. Goggles are again for the same reason, more so to prevent any evidence to get into the eyes and for vision purposes. Foot covers are placed over footwear to prevent marks and tread marks to be placed at the scene, as it may be collected in the form of a cast or dust impression and would be dismissible evidence and create false leads.
All of these are equipped to create a protective barrier between the scene and themselves to protect themselves from harm and to also prevent cross contamination which would deem the evidence as inadmissible in a court of law.
In my scene and from the videos of news reports made at the scene there were no investigators wearing the necessary equipment which is mandatory now, but as this is a historic case, it wasn't as enforced or implemented back then as opposed to now. More so because we realized the magnitude of cross contamination and how important it is to preserve evidence. PPE should have been used to eliminate the risk of cross contamination and to protect the evidence collector more so from the scene to prevent harm being done to them.
Procedure 4: CAP
Common approach path (CAP) are normally metal plates set on the crime scene floor for the investigators/forensics to stand on to avoid potential evidence and to prevent cross-contamination. Any investigators/forensics are to take this route after they sign in and out of the crime scene. Sometimes they are also placed on the perimeter of the scene leading into the scene and out to ensure nothing is cross contaminated and to reduce risk.
In my case, the common approach path wasn't adhered to as far as I know, there are no documentation from the scene detailing this procedure was put into practice. The CAP is in place to allow any potential evidence to be preserved and to prevent contamination or desecration the evidence at the scene. From my research there was no word or use of this procedure which could of made evidence contaminated and if collected and analysed could have made the evidence void creating that evidence dismissable in a court of law. Also this evidence if admitted, the prosecution would dispute the integrity.
In my case, the common approach path wasn't adhered to as far as I know, there are no documentation from the scene detailing this procedure was put into practice. The CAP is in place to allow any potential evidence to be preserved and to prevent contamination or desecration the evidence at the scene. From my research there was no word or use of this procedure which could of made evidence contaminated and if collected and analysed could have made the evidence void creating that evidence dismissable in a court of law. Also this evidence if admitted, the prosecution would dispute the integrity.
Procedure 5: ISA
Initial scene assessment (ISA) is taken at the crime scene, documenting the location of evidence, the location of any victims, the conditions, the scene itself ie. inside, or outside, and the weather conditions such as sunny, bright, dark, cloudy etc if outside mainly. The assessment includes testimonies from witnesses, potential victims, the first attending officer. The points of entry and egress/ exit if applicable are also written about as this is integral if witnesses say this is to be disputed. Any evidence/potential evidence found is kept as an initial log such as cigarette ends, cans, bottles, fuel cans, tools, weapons, and these are collected for the lab if relevant for analysis. Also any potential health and safety is assessed for gas leaks, electrical faults and sees who is to blame be that landlords. Also the weather conditions are noted as some elements of weather can degrade evidence, for example footprints can be made in snow, once melted this evidence is lost and destroyed.
In my case of Hanratty, there was no formal procedure nor documentation of this procedure to be carried out. But the original testimony which was given to the FAO made by victim Valerie Storie, was reportedly lost or destroyed. This is a major break in the case, because what was written on that document could have been completely different to the second testimony made, then was changed later on again. In my case it was external so that any evidence left at the scene that could be degraded and if come into contact with snow, rain, sun (would evaporate evidence), would be. On the scene, the investigators had searched for the gun or other weapons, which would have been marked on a sketch of the scene as well as any significant/collected evidence, including the body. The below image shows Michael Gregsten's body on the left side of the image, with two markers outlining potential evidence not collected from the scene. This created questioning surrounding the correct procedures and evidence collection.
Below is the aerial view of where the bodies and crime was found.
In my case of Hanratty, there was no formal procedure nor documentation of this procedure to be carried out. But the original testimony which was given to the FAO made by victim Valerie Storie, was reportedly lost or destroyed. This is a major break in the case, because what was written on that document could have been completely different to the second testimony made, then was changed later on again. In my case it was external so that any evidence left at the scene that could be degraded and if come into contact with snow, rain, sun (would evaporate evidence), would be. On the scene, the investigators had searched for the gun or other weapons, which would have been marked on a sketch of the scene as well as any significant/collected evidence, including the body. The below image shows Michael Gregsten's body on the left side of the image, with two markers outlining potential evidence not collected from the scene. This created questioning surrounding the correct procedures and evidence collection.
Below is the aerial view of where the bodies and crime was found.
Procedure 6: Plan of premises
The plan of the premises is made on the scene to detail the area of the scene, the location of objects and victims, this sketch is made by the investigation team and photographs are taken to document the scene visually. By taking images of the scene it shows the jury in court exactly where objects were, egress and entry sites, location of evidence, and shows if available reconstructions of murders/assaults. This stage is important to detail the site of the crime, to give a visual description of the scene, and for the investigators to use the image to document the exact location of the evidence, and if its an external scene shows the exact location as to where the scene occurred.
In my case there wasn't a plan of the premises made by the first attending officer, nor investigation team which made the evidence found and victims position hard to locate/pinpoint as the scene was external. With an external scene and on this crime scene, some investigators had metal detectors to find the missing gun which was used to kill Michael Gregsten and to seriously injure and later disable Valerie Storie. Notice the police officer on the right hand side wasn't wearing gloves or any personal protective equipment, nor was the investigator on the left hand side and the metal/mine detective device who was commissioned for the investigation team for the location of the gun (Image shown in appendix 1). Appendix 2 shows another angle and more metal detectors which shows no PPE from the investigators and police in the main view and behind them in the distance which may be more police, investigators, people surrounding Gregsten, witnesses, and the relevant people aren't wearing PPE. Other than the Aerial view images taken from google, shown above.
Procedure 7: Chain of custody
In my case there wasn't a plan of the premises made by the first attending officer, nor investigation team which made the evidence found and victims position hard to locate/pinpoint as the scene was external. With an external scene and on this crime scene, some investigators had metal detectors to find the missing gun which was used to kill Michael Gregsten and to seriously injure and later disable Valerie Storie. Notice the police officer on the right hand side wasn't wearing gloves or any personal protective equipment, nor was the investigator on the left hand side and the metal/mine detective device who was commissioned for the investigation team for the location of the gun (Image shown in appendix 1). Appendix 2 shows another angle and more metal detectors which shows no PPE from the investigators and police in the main view and behind them in the distance which may be more police, investigators, people surrounding Gregsten, witnesses, and the relevant people aren't wearing PPE. Other than the Aerial view images taken from google, shown above.
Procedure 7: Chain of custody
The chain of custody is where the evidence that is passed from the evidence collectors/forensics team passes it on to the investigators/transporters to be taken to the laboratory for analysis. Once passed onto the relevant people there is a logbook with the date taken the evidence, named, signed from person A to person B. This logbook is imperative so that if the evidence was passed on, and subsequently lost, it can be brought up in the investigation and indeed in court. The evidence which has been lost, can be investigated into and bring questions like "why was it lost", "what was the evidence" because the gravity of the evidence could make or break the case. Also knowing who the evidence was connected to, makes them fully responsible to protect and continue the log and chain.
In my case, there was no chain of custody documentation known nor found through research, therefore the procedure was carried out but wasn't a cohesive log, or that there wasn't that procedure in the first place. However, the evidence given in a suspected chain of custody was the first documentation census from John Kerr and Valerie Storie given to the FAO, this document was subsequently lost. The DNA evidence, the handkerchief (later found to be null and void due to no DNA found) and Storie's undergarments containing semen, (later found out in court that evidence was kept from the original court trial) back then there was the ability to obtain a blood group and was found to be O and Gregsten wasn't group O, ruling him out. However in 1961, forensic evidence and science could go no further than typing the blood, and that this group found on the evidence still included 40% of the male population therefore the trace evidence found was filed away and ignored.
In my case, there was no chain of custody documentation known nor found through research, therefore the procedure was carried out but wasn't a cohesive log, or that there wasn't that procedure in the first place. However, the evidence given in a suspected chain of custody was the first documentation census from John Kerr and Valerie Storie given to the FAO, this document was subsequently lost. The DNA evidence, the handkerchief (later found to be null and void due to no DNA found) and Storie's undergarments containing semen, (later found out in court that evidence was kept from the original court trial) back then there was the ability to obtain a blood group and was found to be O and Gregsten wasn't group O, ruling him out. However in 1961, forensic evidence and science could go no further than typing the blood, and that this group found on the evidence still included 40% of the male population therefore the trace evidence found was filed away and ignored.
With breakthroughs in DNA and forensic techniques to analysed evidence, DNA profiling was reinvented and rejuvenated which aided forensic detectives and investigatory work. In 1995, at the request of Hanratty's family, forensic analysts looked back on the original evidence from the, especially exhibit 26, Valerie's underwear. At the height of new techniques and developments a fragment of exhibit 26 was retained in case files, but to resurrect DNA from 30 year old evidence was very hard to extract and carry out and gather results from. As there was no other biological evidence such as blood, hairs, fibres there was nothing to link Hanratty to the morris minor. However this first technique didn't hit a match they later used a DNA copying technique called PCR (Polymerase chain reaction).
Both exhibits the underwear and handkerchief was tested 34 times and obtained results. The results shown that both exhibits had the same DNA profile, therefore who raped Storie also handled the gun used to kill Gregsten and disable Storie, which was a rare result to obtain (one in several hundred millions) but still no person held accountable we just found who handled the weapon and raped Storie.
In 2001, Hanratty's body was exhumed for DNA to be compared, and both sources matched that of James Hanratty, the surviving evidential items stored for 40 years. However, Hanratty's counsel argued that could account for any contamination after being tested in the first instance, being stored in filed, then tested 34 times in 1999 and tested again, and being passed from person to person for a number of decades. His counsel, protesters and Paul Foot, also knew about the 'lax handling of evidence and procedures in this case and argued "the conditions the evidence was stored in, the length of time stored does not satisfy modern evidential standards".
The DNA once tested again, now proved obtain two different sets of male DNA, one which corresponded to Hanratty and Gregsten. Modern testing of the exhumed corpse, and of his family proved in 2002 that Hanratty's guilt was "proved beyond doubt".
Evidence found
The appendix above shows an investigator or prosecution team name unknown, bringing evidence into the court hearing in the Hanratty case. If the man was holding evidence then it would cross-contaminated evidence due to the lack of PPE nor correct handling of evidence.
The appendix above details the evidence from the scene being brought into court via cardboard boxes and no gloves or PPE, the evidence is stacked on top of each other and handled without gloves meaning that evidence could be cross contaminated by the person handling and between evidence. The lack of courtesy of the evidence, which is normal in the time period due to the lack of knowledge of the procedures fully.
The appendix above shows an investigator sat in the police vehicle with the evidence stuffed into the back, which shows the lack of professionalism nor knowledge of the evidence being contaminated. The investigator is also not wearing any PPE which would cross contaminate evidence.
Above is the gun which was located under a seat on the 36A bus, the 38 caliber Enfield gun is photographed above using a forensics imaging ruler used to show the length of the weapon.
The discovery of the gun (imaged above) which shows the location as to where the gun was found on the 36A bus. Below is Edwin Cooke who had found the gun in question which was presumed to be the murder weapon.
Both exhibits the underwear and handkerchief was tested 34 times and obtained results. The results shown that both exhibits had the same DNA profile, therefore who raped Storie also handled the gun used to kill Gregsten and disable Storie, which was a rare result to obtain (one in several hundred millions) but still no person held accountable we just found who handled the weapon and raped Storie.
In 2001, Hanratty's body was exhumed for DNA to be compared, and both sources matched that of James Hanratty, the surviving evidential items stored for 40 years. However, Hanratty's counsel argued that could account for any contamination after being tested in the first instance, being stored in filed, then tested 34 times in 1999 and tested again, and being passed from person to person for a number of decades. His counsel, protesters and Paul Foot, also knew about the 'lax handling of evidence and procedures in this case and argued "the conditions the evidence was stored in, the length of time stored does not satisfy modern evidential standards".
The DNA once tested again, now proved obtain two different sets of male DNA, one which corresponded to Hanratty and Gregsten. Modern testing of the exhumed corpse, and of his family proved in 2002 that Hanratty's guilt was "proved beyond doubt".
Evidence found
The appendix above shows an investigator or prosecution team name unknown, bringing evidence into the court hearing in the Hanratty case. If the man was holding evidence then it would cross-contaminated evidence due to the lack of PPE nor correct handling of evidence.
The appendix above details the evidence from the scene being brought into court via cardboard boxes and no gloves or PPE, the evidence is stacked on top of each other and handled without gloves meaning that evidence could be cross contaminated by the person handling and between evidence. The lack of courtesy of the evidence, which is normal in the time period due to the lack of knowledge of the procedures fully.
The appendix above shows an investigator sat in the police vehicle with the evidence stuffed into the back, which shows the lack of professionalism nor knowledge of the evidence being contaminated. The investigator is also not wearing any PPE which would cross contaminate evidence.
Above is the gun which was located under a seat on the 36A bus, the 38 caliber Enfield gun is photographed above using a forensics imaging ruler used to show the length of the weapon.
The discovery of the gun (imaged above) which shows the location as to where the gun was found on the 36A bus. Below is Edwin Cooke who had found the gun in question which was presumed to be the murder weapon.
Resubmission
The different types of forensic evidence an investigation need are categorized into 3, Biological, Chemical and Physical. DNA evidence can link a person to the area, or object it was from and determine the frequency of that data, it can positively exclude a person from being the 'donor' of the DNA if the tests conclusively say it wasn't this person and vice versa. It can determine gender of the individual and if the material is human or animal etc. However, DNA evidence and analysis can't determine the age, gender of the 'donor', determine the age of the sample, nor determine the force eg. in rape cases it can't determine a struggle in a suspected rape from semen evidence (however self defence and body inflictions can determine this).
In my case there was a rape as proclaimed by Storie and her ordeal and the semen was evidence from the scene, therefore was collected for evidence and analysis. The analysis as later discussed, had shown some data, but as forensics was infant compared to modern day techniques and technology there was limited resources and access, therefore in most cases DNA evidence especially is revisited be that blood, semen, saliva, providing the sample from the crime was preserved and stored correctly, the evidence can be tested again with the correct and specific techniques.
Within my investigation there were all 3 present, Biological as the semen from the underwear was taken for analysis on Storie's undergarments as she was raped this could tell us what grouping the suspect is from and narrow the field that way, as forensic analysis was in its infancy there were limitations to how they could test as the resources weren't available nor invented at that point in time, only a decade or so later until extensive testing was available and used. At the time only the blood grouping could be distinguished and the results from the forensic dossier from the expert witness, was that the semen was from group 0, which wasn't Gregstens, ruling that they had intercourse before the crime occurred, meaning that that semen as from the suspect. However, 40% of the male population had this Group O, and subsequently this evidence was reserved from court and reappeared at a later date.
Normally, at a scene if there was a rape, a UV light would have been used to identify where the semen was as it fluoresces despite their best efforts to cover up the evidence.
The way in which this evidence was collected as it was a small sample size, (and assuming the semen was still wet and not dried by the time of her discovery) the protocol is to carefully recover all the area which has been in contact with the substance and with each item of this evidence should be packaged separately to eliminate the risk of trace evidence loss and prevent cross contamination. If the substance is still wet or damp, air dry the samples and avoid extreme heat and fanning to prevent evaporation and dislodging of evidence, and consider the areas which aren't visible that may be damp, all stains need to be dried and a protective layer under the evidence whilst drying to prevent loss of evidence, before packaging for this contamination risk, and if the area where the semen evidence cant be submitted easily the forensics staff working obtain the sample. The sample once dried is placed into a plastic airtight bag, labelled with the case, number, collector of the evidence, lead investigator, what is is suspected of, and where it was taken from, and should be labelled as a biohazard as it is bodily fluids, this is to then be given to the exhibits officer and logged into the exhibits logbook therefore the evidence is accounted for, and the chain of custody is maintained. The PPE used to collect any biological evidence should be maintained as they run the risk of diseases such as hepatitis as this can live for years in the open air and even when frozen and thawed it can still live, as well as AIDS but it has a short life span when exposed to air compared, therefore gloves, the hazard suit is vital, face mask and goggles are imperative to create a protective barrier between the collector and the potential disease. If the semen and bodily fluids are correctly collected and packaged without the risk of contamination, the preservation goes hand in hand, the better the preparation in collecting and storing the evidence, the better and more valid the sample will be, especially when the DNA of a suspect and someone's life is on the line in criminal cases. Normally, semen is frozen or dried to preserve the evidence, and nowadays specific chemicals can be added to set the semen to preserve its longevity, and air dried without any added heat.
Other types of evidence included chemical testing on the handkerchief, as it was wrapped around the gun at the point of discovery, this would have been tested to determine if that gun was fired and if it was recently used, therefore GSR (Gunshot residue) was being tested for. The way in which they test firearms is to initially use an internal and safe firing range to identify if that gun would be capable of that type of shot made at the scene, which is to identify the gun. The bullets would be cross examined with bullets from the scene with bullets from the actual gun to ensure that the bullets were for that gun, and they were then compared to the bullets found at the Maida Vale hotel for cross examination, the determination of gun is important as it proves that the gun was the actual gun, it can then be tracked to the person be that either by fingerprinting, any retailers who've sold guns and ammunition recently, especially in the UK as it is illegal to carry an illegal firearm, in an American case for instance this would be hard to track as their law is to bear arms and the tracking to the distributor would be harder.
After cross examining under a microscope the bullets for the same markings and distinguishing features, and using firing the gun in an isolated firearms unit, it was the same gun who shot Gregsten and Storie, the bullets that were also found in the Maida Vale hotel were also cross examined and determined to be from the gun, the Enfield 38. The firearms and pathologist in the case was Dr. Keith Richards who worked on Gregsten's body in post mortem, determined death, cause and time, and also was a firearms specialist so investigated the bullets and gun and handled it also.
Along with any piece of evidence especially linked to a criminal investigation, degradation and contamination is a big worry and issue, as the particles are composed of heavy metals, which come originally from these firearms, they are very hard wearing and can withstand a lot of pressure and are able to be retained in materials as spoken below in depth. These particles don't degrade in a natural environment, they may not remain on a person's hands, clothing for a long period of time due to the physical activity of a person as they are constantly using their hands and moving.
The transferring of this residue is important to note especially for investigators as at a later date this would be looked into and the behaviour of the gun and its residue. Once trigger is released from the gun, a high level of pressure and heat builds due to the components in the gun are simultaneously moving to release the bullet, creating friction, therefore once released, particles are deposited on the nearest trajectory in the direction of the bullet and backwards making gunshot residue to be on the person firing, their hands, clothing etc and near the shooter. When two objects interact they both transfer their materials, depositing and passing on transfer evidence, and between materials and garments as they pass from one to another. Fingerprints are also transferred from the shooter to the gun itself as they are holding the firearm and as the high heat builds in the gun the heat travels to the outside making the shooters sweat from their fingers and hands transfer onto the guns surface.
Hands are the most probable area for GSR and where the evidence is collected from, mainly on the four regions of the hand, the right back,right palm, left back and left palm (depending on the dominant hand of the person). The face is also an area for collection especially with rifles and larger guns have a larger barrel in which the bullet is dispersed from therefore more gunshot residue dispersed on to the body and surrounding area. Clothing is also affected in the same fashion as the shooters hands and face, the area surrounding the shooter would have these particles on their body, as the shooter can eradicate to an extent their GSR on their hands and face, their clothing retains it more so. Also, again the area surrounding the shooter are affected by the discharge smoke once the bullet is fired out, this discharge disperses the particles, if the gunshot was internal, the curtains, carpets, sofas would all retain these particles.
For the collecting of GSR evidence, sterile gloves must be worn to eliminate contamination risk of trace evidence, cotton swabs with 5% nitric acid solution for a method called atomic absorption (AA) and inductively coupled plasma (ICP) and adhesive stubs for scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis. The cotton swabs are method of choice for collection of evidence as the others aren't as viable for obtaining results, the nitric acid begins to transform the solid particles into a solution and is then retained in the swab. The other types the stubs, tapes, swabs taken from the suspect's hands, face, clothing, are able to obtain data when taken to the SEM machine. Testing and analysing the GSR for evidence purposes, the gun itself would have been examined for any finger prints, this would have been done by using the dusting and lifting method and as the gun is made of metal, by using a metallic power it would have clung to any fingerprints on the surface, to the lift with J-Lar tape. In the field methods such as carbon cohesive stub which are more efficient and more positive results with a faster turn around time as opposed to the alcohol nitric acid swabs.
For my case however this type of technology wasn't available nor invented therefore wasn't carried out. The only analysis was done on the gun, and bullets via microscope analysis and firearms testing. When taking swabs from a scene or suspect with this type of evidence, there should be enough sample sizes to gain results from and validate results and the samples are to be separately packaged with the appropriate labelling and placed inside a plastic evidence bag, sealed and handed to the exhibits officer and log for the accountability of evidence in the chain of custody
Along with the swabs being inside their plastic covering then placed in evidence bag with the correct labelling, the gun is packaged slightly differently, the bullets retained in the gun are taken out and packaged as well as the bullet in the chamber and classed as safe for handling, and once in the exhibits log in the chain of custody also with the gun itself is taken to the laboratory, the gun is collected and packaged in a padded paper envelope separate from the bullets and magazine (ammunition storage) or small cardboard pillow boxes for safety and again should be labelled accordingly.
The handkerchief would have been put into an evidence bag, as this wasn't wet and would have been labelled correctly. The handkerchief would have been swabbed for these carbon and chemicals of gunpowder/ gunshot residue and then run through SEM but as the technology wasn't advanced, the handkerchief wasn't admitted as actual evidence, just noted as it was wrapped around the gun and placed in the back seat of the 39A bus and gun, found by cleaner Edwin Cooke. The issue surrounding the gun is that if the fingerprints were lifted and the people who've interacted with the gun eg. the cleaner and police would have this GSR on their clothing, and cross contaminate the handkerchief with its fibres with the other peoples clothing fibres, fingerprints and hairs etc.
The evidence collection in this investigation was to knowledge and research packaged, accounted for and preserved well, (barring how it entered court) especially the semen sample/ undergarments as this was later int eh years following and decade later, tested a multitude of times as technology progressed to determine if Hanratty was hanged for his crime or falsely accused and killed.
The procedures taken at the scene are imperative to gain hard forensic analysis to come to strong conclusions against the defence or for the defence, and the collection of evidence and preservation is vital to secure this, the prevention of contamination and loss of evidence builds a strong case in court.
Lewis Nichols, the director of the metropolitan police laboratory at Scotland Yard was called to give evidence at the Magistrates court, who ran operations in the laboratory and overseen the investigation as a whole was speculated to direct the investigation to Hanratty as he was seen as 'disadvantaged' by his previous offending history and jail service. Another prominent figure, Detective Sergeant Kenneth Oxford was cross examined by defence lawyer and council Michael Sherrard for the mishandling of the case, especially in the early releasing of media information, the documentation loss and evidence accountability, he was a junior detective on the case at the time and was appointed Detective Sergeant due to his contributions on the A6 Murder case. Other figureheads in the case include Bob Acott and Charles Barton who were the lead investigators on the case at Bedford CID doing the groundwork and assisting on the scene with witness statements. The issue surrounding Acott and Barton is due to the detective constables Albert Stillings and Jim Williams who were based at Blackpool CID who worked on Hanratty's Blackpool Alibi accountability, the use of other agencies and police forces can be a real help in investigations, when they share their intelligence, but the Bedford Detectives didn't follow up on the Blackpool suspect who was a witness to Hanratty being in Blackpool.
Other pieces of evidence, with no forensic intention such as the first statement drawn up by investigators and the FAO by Valerie Storie before her surgery was lost and wasn't recovered, but was known to be last in the possession of the FAO therefore the document was re-written twice and multiple identikits made and released to the press and media very early on in the investigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment