What procedures were followed to secure the crime scene?

Speak to first attending officer

The first attending officer refers to the first law official who arrives at the scene of a crime; they have a variety of procedures to carry out whilst waiting for other personnel’s to arrive. As they have to complete an initial scene assessment of the crime, e.g. identifying the location, time, date, weather, any victims present or witnesses to enable to conduct interviews or make an arrest. They also have the responsibility of securing the scene, which will be later discussed. When the scenes of crime officer (SOCO) first arrives at a crime scene they have the responsibility of speaking to the FAO, with the purpose of gaining information regarding the criminal act, thus identify what the nature of the crime is. SOCO’s are able to gain information regarding any witnesses of the crime and information regarding specific evidence, for example if there is a body present. Therefore the SOCO will be aware of vital information regarding the case which can aid their investigation when investigating the crime scene. A possible detrimental effect of speaking to the FAO is gaining misleading information in relation to the crime that has been committed. For example if the FAO provided information to the SOCO specifying they believe it was a particular crime, the SOCO may disregard evidence that doesn’t seem relevant, when in actual fact it may play a vital role in convicting an individual of the crime. 

Secure the scene

A vital procedure at a crime scene is securing the scene; this involves cornering off the scene to any undesired personnel’s. Numerous things need to be taken into account when cornering off the scene, such as the size of the area need to be protected. For example if an individual is stabbed then typically the crime scene will be of a smaller area, in comparison to a shooting, as the area of the crime scene will have to include the point of impact and the location the bullet was fired, thus potentially increasing the area of the crime scene. It is also important that no evidence exceeds the secured area, as it will potentially become contaminated thus proving unreliable when presented within court. The purpose of securing the crime scene is to prevent the scene from being contaminated from potential citizens or suspects. This is to ensure that the evidence is preserved to the best ability under the circumstance, thus can be used as evidence when presented in a court setting. The securing of the scene can also prevent the media from attaining pictures of the crime scene or evidence, as the media can influence the public’s fear of crime, therefore the case can be over exaggerated thus putting more pressure on the authorities to arrest an suspect which in turn may lead to the officials missing vital information and carrying out their roles and responsibilities incorrectly leading to mistakes being made.

Referring back to the Guy Paul Morin case, the first crime scene (house of Christine Jessop) was not secured as they didn’t class the house of Christine’s to be a crime scene until the later realisation that she has been abducted and hadn’t gone missing on her own account. Therefore potential evidence which was contained in the house was contaminated, this meaning that it could not be used to suggests or prove facts within the investigation. Furthermore, unofficial personnel were able to enter the house, who once again potentially jeopardise any evidence which may have been crucial to the investigation. However at the second crime scene (body of Christine Jessop) the scene was securely secured by detectives and police officers.

Place PPE on

The use of personal protection equipment (PPE) is essential when attending a crime scene, as it is to essentially protect the individual from the crime scene and to protect the crime scene from the individual. Personal protection equipment includes a white body suit, latex gloves, protective glasses and a face masks. PPE is very important as it prevents the SOCO from contaminating evidence within the crime scene, e.g. with their bodily fluids, or potential hair fibres. Therefore this ensuring that the evidence obtained from the crime scene is a reliable and can be relied upon within court if necessary. As if the evidence collected from the crime scene was contaminated by the SOCO it would be regarded irrespective of its importance. Wearing PPE also protects the SOCO from the crime scene, as there is a potential of hazardous chemicals being present at the crime scene, such as bodily fluids of an individuals who has HIV. Therefore it is ensuring the safety of the officers of the individuals who attend the crime scene.

Referring back to the Guy Paul Morin case, the investigators and SOCO’s all ensured they wore PPE when they attended the second crime scene (body of Christine Jessop). This was to ensure they protected the evidence from contamination and to protect themselves from the evidence obtained. This is to ensure that the evidence obtained within the investigation can be called upon in court to provide as effective. This meaning that it can stand as reliable evidence within court as it has been collected correctly, therefore it was very important within the criminal investigation.

Common approach path

A common approach path is set up within a crime scene which a designated route of which officers must follow in order to decrease disturbance in the surrounding area. The common approach path will being at the point of entry, of the crime scene to the focal point (which may be a body). The purpose of setting up a common approach path it to try and avoid contamination, as it instructs the individual of the way to walk around the scene. Therefore the common approach path will not disrupt any evidence which may be of a benefit to the investigation.

Referring back to the case I’m discussing there is no information regarding the wrong doing of the common approach path, therefore one is able to assume that it was completed correctly at the second crime scene. However if there wasn't a common approach path set up within the investigation it can be detrimental, because potential evidence may be contaminated due to a large quantity of people walking through the evidence. Furthermore, if a common approach path isn't set up within an investigation the investigator team may potential miss evidence within the scene as they overlook an area of the crime scene, which can once again have detrimental effects upon the investigation. 

Initial scene assessment

An initial scene assessment is an evaluation of the crime scene which is typically carried out by the first attending officer. The assessment includes the location of the crime, time, date, weather upon arrival, sketches of the premises, photographs, if there are any witnesses present and if there any vital pieces of evidence such as a body, or a weapon. The initial scene assessment is very beneficial to the investigation process, as it identifies the layout of the scene (including evidence) before an analysis, therefore it can provide useful when presented within court.

The initial scene assessment within the Guy Paul Morin case was not completed, as the detectives didn’t class the house of Christine’s to be a crime scene until the later realisation that she has been abducted and hadn't gone missing on her own account. Therefore the state of the house was not recorded, thus potential evidence in the house was contaminated as unofficial personnel was allowed to freely enter the house to give comfort to the family of Christine Jessop. This had detrimental effects upon the investigation process as they were unable to use the house of Jessop as a crime scene, which may have had evidence which gave the investigator a new line of enquiry. 

Entry log

An entry log is an exhibit which is continuously carried out through analyse of a crime scene. The log records information regarding individuals who have entered the crime scene, the purpose of their entry, the time and date of entry. The purpose of the entry log is to monitor who enters and exits of the crime scene, this is to ensure they no unofficial personnel’s enter the crime scene, thus to prevent the contamination of evidence, this meaning the evidence will not be taken into account when it court. Furthermore, the entry log can be compared against an official’s name to identify if they have accessed several crime scenes one day, if evidence admitted by them was contaminated. Thus it can potentially determine the individual who contaminated the evidence. The entry log can be beneficial to an investigation as officers are able to refer back to it later in the investigation, if requiring information in regards to individuals who accessed the crime scene.

Referring back to the case of Paul Morin there is no reference to the use of an entry log throughout the investigation. Therefore it can only be assumed that the procedure was carried out correctly. This can only only beneficial effects upon the investigation as it can demonstrate that the analysis and securing of evidence was done effectively. This meaning that when the evidence is called upon within court, it can be presented as strong evidence due to it not being tampered thus considered as being reliable, on the basis that the evidence was collected and preserved correctly. 

Chain of custody

The chain of custody refers to a log book which contains the different pieces of evidence that was collected at a specific crime scene. Information that is recorded in regards to the evidence is; what the evidence is presumed to be, the time and date it was collected and the individual who collected the piece of evidence. The chain of custody is beneficial to an investigation, as the officials are able to monitor every piece of evidence that is collected from the crime scene. Therefore they are clearly able to identify if any pieces of evidence goes missing throughout the investigation process, thus can investigate the missing pieces of evidence and potentially identifying an individual interfering with the investigation. 

In the investigation of Paul Morin this procedure was not carried out correctly, as many pieces of evidence obtained from the second crime scene was not logged into the chain of custody. This meaning that there is no recollection of a variety pieces of evidence demonstrating Morin's innocence, due to faulty work on the behalf of the police. This initially had detrimental effects upon the case as evidence could not be called upon within court. Furthermore, this demonstrated how inaccurate the police work was conducted, which only heightened the fact that the investigation was misleading from start to finish.