Crime Scene Investigator (25 page)

The development of high-intensity light sources and their use in sequence with chemical methods offered a greater ability to develop finger mark and forensic evidence at crime scenes and material removed from them. Surrey was well placed. Ken Williams was a pioneer within provincial police forces who developed simple and practical ways in which to apply these technologies.

For almost a hundred years fingerprint evidence had been given in court in England and Wales based on the sixteen-point standard. Marks were said to be identical with prints taken from a suspect where there were sixteen identical points in identical sequence. The points which experts use are the bifurcations and ridge endings found on the friction ridges of fingers, palms and feet. Simply put this is where a raised ridge splits or forks (bifurcates) or stops (ridge ends). Such characteristics are random and different in sequence between individuals. Sixteen points in identical sequence was enough for an expert to say the mark and prints are identical. Although that figure was sound it was not based on any statistical analysis or probability. It was only the exposure to other scientific disciplines that raised the issue of experts giving evidence when less than sixteen points were found. The opinion of the expert would take into account other factors which had always influenced the expert in reaching a conclusion. Up to then they were not referred to and not given in evidence. A change in the way in which fingerprint evidence was given in court would take place because it was sound science, but there were many fingerprint experts who disagreed and they were comfortable to stand behind a sixteen-point standard, even though it was historically and not science based.

Perhaps more significant was the ability of fingerprint officers to classify marks and prints, search and share them with other police forces. A national Automated Fingerprint Identification System had been proposed by the UK Home Office in the mid 1980s, many years before. The major player was the Metropolitan Police but by 1992 there was no sight on the horizon of a national system. The main losers in this were the provincial forces such as Surrey who attracted criminals from major cities like London but had no way of sharing fingerprint intelligence through computers. For this reason, four forces got together and proposed a system of their own, led by John Hoddinot, the Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary and a career detective. Surrey was one of the four and Ray Elvy, the Surrey bureau head, played an active role. Within a year the four had grown to thirty-six out of forty-three forces, almost a national system. The Automated Fingerprint Retrieval (AFR) consortium was born and would run until the millennium when a Home Office national system would be finally introduced.

As I worked with Ray, this quiet man demonstrated a total and comprehensive commitment to his role as head of the Surrey bureau and to the development of a system which would talk fingerprints to other forces. He was an absolute rock, totally dependable and astonishingly hard working. On the sixteen-point standard we would differ. He did not want this to change. He was an expert practitioner and I had a duty to listen carefully and respect his view. I saw things from a view of the wider scientific community and the needs of the courts. The change process was a difficult one and although change was happening it was important not to leave anyone behind. Ray was another unsung hero, who quietly and with little fuss delivered much to the people of Surrey and far beyond.

Surrey had yet another important resource. Nick Sawyer, a senior scenes of crime officer, showed an exceptional interest in shoe-mark intelligence. Shoe marks have formed an important part of my work ever since I first investigated crime scenes. Marks and ways to catalogue and index them for intelligence purposes were not new then. What Nick Sawyer did was to use the available computer technology to improve the communication amongst those with an interest. He developed a computerised coding system based on a system used at the Metropolitan Police Laboratory for over fifteen years. The Surrey Shoefit system allowed for an alpha numeric code to be assigned to marks recovered from the scene and the footwear of persons passing through our custody centres. The code could be added to the computerised crime reports and the custody records of detained persons. It was a quick and reliable intelligence source which was based solely (please excuse the pun) on shoe-mark patterns. It was not an evidential system. Linked with the other intelligence on the system, connections could be made. Sometimes the mere mention of the link would help a person detained for one offence realise the game was up and admit to many more. For a firm evidential link, both marks and shoes would need to go to a forensic science laboratory. Shoefit provided an important missing link. The database was dynamic and simply updated by Nick for the whole force area. The shoe-mark patterns we found were not specific to Surrey, and so the database was just as important to other forces and some took it on. Some forces had yet to introduce computerised crime and custody record systems and so could not benefit form the fast intelligence link. There were other systems in use in other forces but they needed many hours of data input from SOCOs on a daily basis which was a demand on time and a duplication of resources. Shoefit was good because it was quick and very simple and it gave results. In the years since, other systems have developed and the graphics improved, but the basis is the same, it is all about the pattern of shoes. It hasn’t changed since I operated my own shoe-mark index as a SOCO back at City Road in 1980.

The way forensic science was delivered to police forces was also changing. The crime scene teams were responsible for the investigation of the scene and the recording and recovery of forensic and fingerprint evidence. After an evaluation of the evidential material and the investigative needs of each case, items were submitted to outside forensic science laboratories for identification and comparison work. This ensured independent answers to important investigative questions. These services had to be paid for. The benefit was that any laboratory or expert qualified and competent to examine the material could be engaged to do so. So, instead of employing a small laboratory staff undertaking a narrow range of services, a full range of services could be engaged for the same costs by using independent laboratories. The main laboratory service was the former Home Office forensic science laboratories, the Forensic Science Service. But there were other laboratories and they have flourished since. All these laboratories now provide full ranges of service in direct competition. And that is good because it raises standards to ensure the needs of investigators are met.

Managing the budget for the use of forensic science laboratories was my responsibility as scientific support manager. I wanted to ensure that as little as possible got in the way of investigators on the ground making sound decisions in this matter. So rather than imposing decisions from Police HQ, I set out the criterion for using the laboratories and delegated the decisions to the local crime scene managers. It would be their role to ensure the criterion was met. It would also ensure sound communication between detectives and crime scene personnel. The criterion I developed was quite simple. If the submission of any item to the laboratory could meaningfully answer an investigator’s question, which could not be answered by other means, then it should be submitted, irrespective of the cost. The last clause drew a raised eyebrow from the director of finance but I was firm on this and he really had no problem once I explained why it was necessary. Since we were paying the laboratory for each examination they made there were potential critics, in particular defence lawyers, who might suggest that we didn’t fully investigate a case because it was too costly. So the criterion was ethical and responsible. The detail of the criterion explained that ‘meaningfully answer’ included identifying material, linking offences and people and eliminating suspects. A few years later when the Metropolitan Police were reviewing the use of their own laboratory (which resulted in it joining the Forensic Science Service) it quoted the criterion as an example of good practice.

Surrey County Council approved a plan to build a new scientific support centre which would bring the physical and human resources together. Although the main forensic laboratory work would continue to be undertaken in an outside laboratory, the front-end search, recovery, recording and intelligence responsibilities remained within the force. This would ensure that light sources and chemical treatments could be applied in sequence by a team of crime scene investigators, forensic photographers, fingerprint experts and any number of specific forensic scientists. The new centre in Surrey would include two separate examination rooms, complete with independent extraction to prevent contamination. Also present would be a hazard examination room for items heavily soiled with blood and body fluids. Not even forensic science laboratories had those facilities. It may be because, up to then, such stained items would not be examined because they were too unpleasant. New technologies meant that doing nothing was not a satisfactory answer. So Surrey would have a facility not only to deal safely with such items but to examine and recover all the forensic evidence which they contained. The room would be fitted with seamless stainless-steel worktops, which could be hosed down, and drying facilities for soiled items. There was even a separate entrance for staff (to prevent unpleasant materials coming through the main door) and shower facilities for staff working in the area so they could clean themselves up after. A full-height garage with vehicle lift, and a door which would ensure a total blackout, so that the light sources could be used, completed the examination and search facilities.

The combined opportunity of increased recovery of evidence through light sources and identification through fingerprint and DNA computerisation and practice meant that the next five years were going to be exciting. To put Surrey in a position where it would benefit from all these opportunities, a coordinated plan was needed. So in 1995 we put together the Bureau 2000 project to map out how each of these opportunities would be realised along with those which came along in the meantime. It would mean budgeting for extra equipment and staff and a phased implementation so that all the strings pulled and came together at the right time.

The Society’s diploma went from strength to strength, with a healthy number of committed professional putting themselves forward as candidates. Many successful ‘diplomats’ would use the award as a springboard for their own careers, rising to management and senior management in forces in the UK and organisations overseas. Having obtained the permission of the chief constable, Surrey became the home of the practical examinations held over three long weekends in June between 1992 and 1999. The examinations brought together practitioners, scientists, academics and lawyers. One stalwart of the exam process was Dr Jim Thorpe, who regularly made the journey from the University of Strathclyde in Scotland to Surrey. He had succeeded Brian Caddy as the head of the Society’s Professional Awards Committee in 1992. I served as a member of the Council of the Forensic Science Society from 1992–5, whilst continuing as Secretary of the Crime Scene Investigation Diploma and running the examination programme. As chair of the scientific meeting committee, I helped plan and deliver the three scientific conferences held each year. By 1996 I had been elected vice president of the Society. It was a time of great change. A series of miscarriages of justice had shaken the police and forensic science communities. There were calls for professional registration and the Society’s role itself was being challenged. The Society had led the programme for vocational qualification and accreditation but more was needed. Some people stressed a need for a professional body for forensic scientists. Many of those who called for such a body had not bothered to join the Society or use it as a mechanism to develop things. I observed that they were more interested in looking after their own vested interests within organisations than developing the science and how it was delivered. Some might accuse me of the same, but I would suggest they were wrong. My determination to do the right thing probably got me into trouble more often than it helped my career. The proposed professional body would duplicate many of the development resources which the Society offered, namely vocational qualifications, a scientific journal and a scientific conference programme. What was needed was a process of registration of all forensic practitioners alongside all this. The Society was caught on the hop and at the first meeting of a government-charged committee headed by Lord Dainton the Society’s efforts were virtually overlooked. A meeting of the Society’s governing council was held within a week and my blood was up. Members of the council worked on a written response to Dainton’s committee, whilst I prepared a presentation on behalf of the Society which I would personally deliver when the committee next met.

Professor Caddy, representing the University of Strathclyde but also a member of the Society’s council, was there. Also present was Bob Lees, a distinguished Scottish procurator fiscal who was the society’s president. I remember nervously waiting outside the committee room at the forbidding Royal Society of Chemistry to deliver the presentation in January 1997. I felt that the very future of the Society was at stake if a duplicate organisation was to undertake things that the Society did, and did well. If this were needed then it had to be for the right reason and of course the Society would see the greater good and support progressive change. But a firm account of the Society’s activities and position was needed. Lord Dainton was a charming, decisive and focused pillar of the scientific establishment but he immediate put me at my ease. The presentation went well and I could see by the responses of Brian Caddy and Bob Lees that I had done a good job. The committee was given the written response to support my presentation. Within a short time the committee had decided to address the need for accreditation and leave all the other aspects of education, development, publication and meeting to others, the Society being the strongest in these fields. The Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners would grow out of Dainton’s recommendations. It does just that – accredits practitioners, scientists, investigators and experts alike active in the delivery of forensic science to the courts.