Who was involved in various stages of the investigation process?

An outline of the contribution members of the investigation team make to ensure a secure audit trail

There are a variety of members that contribute to a criminal investigation process to ensure a secure audit trail. An audit trail is a paper or computerised system that enables a trace on any relating items. The members that are involved include police officials, forensic scientists, detectives, scene of crimes officers and a coroner (their contribution to the investigation process has been discussed previously, of which you will find on the first attachment in the blog).

What evidence was obtained?

During the exploration of the evidence found at the crime scene the scenes of crime officer (SOCO) discovered a necklace containing a lock of hair, all of which belonged to Christine Jessop except a single strand which was presumed to have belonged to the killer. The SOCO did not ensure the safety of this piece of evidence as they did not wear suitable personal protection, this including protective gloves and white protection suit. Therefore potentially the single strand of hair belonged to one of the officials. This meaning the credibility of the forces investigation procedures when presented in court has the potential of being questioned, this meaning that their reliability may be dismissed which would have detrimental effects upon the proceedings.

Once fibres were collected from the victims clothing and Morin’s evidence they were transported to the Ontario Centre of Forensic Scientist for analysis. Once again the audit trail was put into jeopardy as the centre did not follow simple procedures of wearing personal protection equipment, thus contaminating evidence. As it was discovered that red animal fibres were found on both pieces of evidence, thus placing Christine Jessop in the car of Morin. This playing a role in his conviction, as the evidence was displayed in the court to suggest that Morin used the vehicle to transport Christine once he captured her. However it was later revealed that the individual analysing the two piece of evidence failed to wear a laboratory coat, therefore their red angora sweater was exposed during the examination. This was detrimental to the case as said earlier the evidence was used against Morin, of which the contamination was never reported to either the Crown or the Defence.

Furthermore the detectives did not ensure the security of the audit trail as a variety of evidence obtained from the crime scene were discarded. The evidence included cigarette butts, a lighter and a cigarette packet. It was later discovered that the detective rejected the evidence as it didn’t fit with their case of Paul Morin as he did not smoke, therefore to remove any conspiracy about the killer they threw the evidence away. This had a detrimental effect upon the case, as the evidence found demonstrated that the killer smoked thus would cast doubt upon the prospect of Paul Morin being the killer. However as the evidence never materialised Guy Paul Morin remain main suspect within the case, further the offices tunnel vision.

In addition, the ‘bag and tag’ was not successfully completed by the scenes of crime officer who originally handled the evidence at the scene of Christine’s body, which then affected the log the forensic team made. This is because the SOCO team were under pressure to quickly gather the evidence due to fast approaching storm, therefore they rushed the process of collecting the evidence and correctly labelling the evidence. This meaning that the SOCO’s did not use adequate equipment to pick up the evidence, rather they used their hands as it was considered a quicker process. In addition, once the evidence was collected they hastily put the evidence into a bag without correcting entering the details, such as the name of the officer who collected the evidence etc. This meaning that it could not be later traced who essentially handled the piece of evidence and where it was collected from. Therefore this put the investigation in jeopardy as many of the pieces of evidence had to be dismissed when questioned in court due the amount of errors made, declaring the piece of evidence an unreliable.

Describe how various members of the investigation worked as team during the whole process.

Various members worked together throughout the course of the investigation in order to provide an efficient and successful conviction. An example of this is the work relayed between the scene of crime officer to the coroner to the detective which was then communicated within court (thus including the defence and prosecutors). As once the body of Christine Jessop was discovered in the wooden area the police officers were called to the scene accompanied with a scenes of crime officer. The scenes of crime officer secured the body to ensure that it would not be contaminated prior to it being transported to the morgue for an examination. The coroner then proceed to carry out an autopsy upon the body in order to identify the cause of death, for the purpose of aiding the investigation. This is because it would enable the detectives some understating of the moments leading up to the death which may be beneficial by producing a new line of enquiry or supporting a theory they had already constructed. Once the autopsy had been carried out upon the body of Christine Jessop, the information was conveyed onto the detectives. The detectives then proceeded to analyse the write up in order to understand the cause of death. The information regarding the cause of death was then used in court by both the prosecutors and defence in order to aid their argument. They were able to receive the information by communicating with the detectives by obtaining the autopsy reports.

Evaluate the contributions of different team members and how they contributed to the security of the audit trail of evidence.

It can be considered that the forensic scientists did not successfully contribute to the security of the audit trail of evidence, as it was either contaminated or overlooked. This was because when the pieces of evidence were in their care, they misused their authority which led to significant faults within the case. This meaning they did not preserve the evidence they were handed to analyse, as several pieces of evidence contained fibres of clothing from forensic analysis, this suggesting they did not effectively implement the use of personal protection equipment throughout the analysis. Furthermore, several pieces of evidence went ‘missing’ when they were in the care of forensic scientists, which has been stated would have played a significant role in demonstrating Paul Morin’s innocence. This heightening the fact that they didn’t successfully secure the audit trail of evidence.

In addition, to the forensic scientists, a small minority of the detectives involved in the investigation did not fully secure the audit trail of evidence in relation to witness statements. As they convinced the family of Christine Jessop to alter information within their witness statements to contradict what Guy Paul Morin said, in order to prove that he was the individual that abducted and murdered Christine Jessop. This showing that several detectives did not effectively secure the audit trail of evidence as they intentionally tampered with the evidence in order to try and prove the guilt of Guy Paul Morin.

Where some of more use or more value to the investigation process than others?

The members involved within the process contributed a significant amount of value to the investigation, however some members were of more value due to errors made. This meaning that a small minority of the members involved within the investigation process would have played a significant role however due to errors they have made they hindered the investigation process. As several of the individuals who analysed the scene where Christine Jessop’s body was found made mistakes by not wearing personal protection equipment, disposing cigarette buds, dismissing evidence that may have been of some relevance and not conducting their job correctly by not discovering several bones at the scene. Therefore it can be argued that they did not offer value as they did not carry out their roles and responsibilities correctly, thus hindering the experiment. As a result of errors that were made at the site of Christine Jessop body, ultimately an innocent man was convicted of the crime.

Did some make mistakes that may have cost the case?

A very important mistake that was made during the investigation process which may have cost them the case is failing to secure the scene of Christine Jessop’s house immediately after her abduction. As once the parents of Christine’s notified the local police that she was missing, the officers initially treated the case as a young girl who has gone missing on her own account. Thus letting family members and members of the neighbourhood to enter the house in order to give support to the family. This meaning that any evidence contained within the house such as DNA belonging to the individual who abducted Christine’s would have been contaminated. In addition, the police wouldn’t be able to determine whose DNA should and shouldn’t be found within the property as countless people entered the house to support the family. It can be debated that due to the misdoings of the initial responses he case has never been successfully solved.

In conclusion, there were a large amount of errors that occurred during the criminal investigation which ultimately led to the wrongful conviction of Guy Paul Morin, leaving the killer a free individual. As a result of the poor work completed by members of the investigation team the audit trail of evidence was not secure at all times, which in turn led to further complications along the line. For those reasons large amendments within the law and police force were made in order to prevent the errors from occurring again in other cases.