Members of the investigation team

There are many different individuals involved in the investigation of a crime. Each of the individuals involved within the investigation of a crime has their own specific job roles and responsibilities that contribute to the investigation process. These job roles and the cooperation that is carried out with one another ensures that the evidence from a crime remains secure and travels through a secure audit trail, ensuring the evidence is not contaminated in any way and that the exact whereabouts of the evidence at each point is recorded and known otherwise evidence will be acquitted and won’t count in court.

People involved in my investigation where

1.    Police (can also be known as first offending officer)

2.    Detectives

3.    Forensic scientists

4.    Pathologists

5.    Scenes of crimes officer (SOCO)

Police

Police were called to the scenes of the crime and can also be called the first offending officer. Ian Huntley had previously committed crimes which were a major weakness in my case, Police failed in this area. The police were involved in all but one of his previous crimes and police also investigated three separate claims by women who said Huntley had raped them. He was also charged with burglary however the case was dropped when it got to court however was noted on his convictions record. In spite of all this, Huntley emerged without a conviction. Decisions were taken not to proceed with those cases for various reasons “those where decisions that the police took” BBC News. Police also interviewed Huntley on a number of occasions without realising he had a string of past allegations. By the time Huntley applied for a job in Soham, he had changed his name to Ian Dixon. His police checks where made under the name of Nixon but police failed to check under his real name which would have thrown up his burglary charge which would of meant that he wouldn’t of gotten the job as a caretaker. If police had investigated the previous sexual crimes against Huntley then he would have never been able to get the chance to murder the young girls. Evidence from the soham murders where handled mainly by the police first which would of then been passed through many people such as the exhibits officer and the forensic scientists who would eventually keep them secure. However police took too long to get the correct vehicle of Ian Huntleys and this was overlooked by officers until later, so this meant that they might have been able to get vital evidence which would have helped them find the girls. In the early stages of the investigation, Cambridge police appeared chaotic, officers where scurrying around after myriad leads and not taking notes. CCTV footage of holly and Jessica crossing the sports centre car park was discovered by a receptionist 24 hours after the police missed it. This could have been vital evidence in the case. However apart from this police made sure all evidence was secured properly and logged when passing it onto the next person such as the forensics or detectives.


Detectives

The detectives in my case where superintendent Chris Stevenson and brain Stevens who helped build links and leads to help solve the case. At the beginning of the case they had no major leads and missed several opportunities to link Huntley. However when Huntley started getting extremely involved in the case, the detectives started to get suspicious and investigated Huntley. They investigated locations of Huntley, investigated into his previous background in which they found all his previous crimes and allegations he had been accused of which had been dropped and not properly investigated. This was a weakness as the detectives had previously missed his previous crimes which could of led to evidence. The detectives where responsible in handling the body from the forensics. Their objective was to analyse how the blood stains got in his house and why they where there. They kept the blood sample secure by making sure it was labelled and logged then passed to the exhibits officer where it was then passed to forensics for analysis and then the forensics kept it secure. Detectives also investigated the girls phones being switched off at 6:45pm as highly significant which helped them build links. Detectives then began to trawl through 260 people in the country whose names were on the sex offenders register and they questioned their whereabouts from the help of the police however they was another list of 279 alleged subscribers to child pornography websites living in this country was all passed to detectives however lay unexamined. All this helped in finding evidence which was logged and passed to forensics for examinations and secured.

Soco’s – scenes of crime officers

 In my case the SOCO was responsible for searching Huntleys car and house and a bungalow which was 4 miles away from where the girls bodies were found. The soco’s found various evidence from blood to petrol and as pair of shoes in his car and a bin containing the man united shirts. In the SOCO’s job to collect any evidence they find, before hand the first offending officer will have examined the crime scene and make a common approach path which they will then tell the SOCO about who will then collect any evidence and label it making sure a secure audit trail, the evidence is labelled and packaged and passed along to the exhibits officer when it will then go to forensics for examination, each time it gets passed along it must be signed in and out to say where it has gone otherwise evidence can get lost and contaminated. Evidence will then be kept secure by the forensic scientist and may be passed on to detectives for investigative purposes. All evidence can then be shown in the court. In my case all evidence was collected and labelled correctly and was signed in and out each time in was passed on so evidence was all kept secure by each member of the team.

 Forensic scientists

In my case the forensic scientists where sent evidence to analyse, they where sent the bin which contained the girls man united shirts, other clothes of the girls, fibres from his car and his carpet.
The strengths of the forensics analysing evidence is that it can ensure that they find the correct information relating to the case such as if they collect fingerprints and analyse them it can show them who was involved with this piece of evidence and what they were doing with it. The weaknesses of the forensics analysing evidence is that if it is not analysed correctly an important piece of evidence can be contaminated. They also must ensure they secure the evidence correctly after analysing it so that if the case needs to be reviewed in the future it can be. the police would of first made a common approach path for where the evidence was and then the SOCO would of came and collect it, throughout this the evidence would have been labelled and logged to say who collected it and given to the exhibits officer where it will of then been passed onto the forensics scientist who would of logged it after analysing it and kept it secure, it may of then been passed to a detective for investigation purposes. through the whole investigation in my case all evidence was collected properly and logged and labelled by everyone who handled it, this ensured that no evidence was mis-placed and that nothing was contaminated. Specialist forensic scientists where brought in such as a botanist who analysed the trees and plants surrounding the girls body and also the pollen this was able to link Huntley to the scene. a specialist car mechanic was also used to analyse Huntleys car which they proved to of been sanitised and all the tyres changed. a forensic scientist was also able to analyse his car and find that there was traces of chalk, brick dust and concrete which again linked him to the girls bodies. also though Huntley tried to destroy a lot of forensic evidence, forensic scientists where able to find a great deal of evidence which linked him to the murders.

Pathologists

In my case the pathologist was Nathaniel Carey, his job was to examine the girls bodies and conclude a cause of death. he came to a conclusion that the girls died of asphyxia. evidence suggested the girls clothes had been cut off and their bodies set on fire after they where put in the ditch, the bodies where so badly decomposed. the police and detectives would of handled the bodies and passed the bodies onto the pathologists who then contributed to the case by analysing the bodies.


The Bodies

The first piece of evidence, which can be identified as being handled by different team members involved in the investigation, was the bodies of Holly and Jessica. The Police, Detectives, Scenes of Crime Officer’s and the Pathologist handled this evidence. The first team members to handle the bodies of the victims were the police, primarily the first attending officer who cordoned the scene off and contacted the appropriate specialists which is the primary job role of the police and this was done correctly. This is done to prevent any unauthorised personnel from entering the scene and contaminating the evidence. The SOCOs and the pathologist also handled the bodies. These members  ensure a secure audit trail, this is because they should guarantee that any evidence on the body is packaged and labelled correctly, they then must ensure that this evidence is checked into the chain of custody –which is monitored by an exhibits officer. The purpose of this chain of custody is in order to record who has handled the evidence, where the evidence was found within the crime scene and also to record where the evidence should go to be processed and analysed. Within the Soham murder case the SOCOs and the pathologist did this correctly and therefore all evidence remained sufficient enough to be used in a court of law.

Evidence throughout my investigation

 Throughout my whole investigation there are no reports of any pieces of evidence not being secure. Therefore, the evidence in my case was kept secure throughout the whole investigation. This was done was done in many ways including; Chain of custody, packaging, labelling/tagging, handling and transporting process and personal protective equipment ( PEE) . The evidence was firstly kept secure by the SOCOs through the use of PPE during the collection process at the crime scene. This helps protect the security of the evidence because it prevents any potential contamination at the crime scene. Doing this procedure does not put the validity of the evidence in danger in any way. In my investigation every SOCO who went into the crime scene had the correct PPE on. After the collection of the evidence it is secured further through the use of appropriate packaging which helps protect the evidence by keeping it secure and preventing it from contamination. In addition, packaging also allows officers to determine if a piece of evidence has been tampered with. The evidence was then passed onto the forensic scientists which helped ensure the security of the evidence because when they were handling the evidence they ensure they wore all the correct PPE to ensure the evidence didn’t get contaminated. Also all the forensic techniques carried out where successful and didn’t destroy any evidence. Finally the evidence was kept secure throughout the whole investigation by maintaining a successful chain of custody. Everyone in my investigation including all have been a part of the chain of custody if they handled the evidence. Everyone who received the evidence in this case signed the evidence to make sure it was logged, this helped keep track of the evidence throughout the investigation and exactly who has handled it to ensure no evidence is tampered with by any unauthorised personnel who have the potential to destroy the evidence. The only mistake that was made in the Soham murders investigation was by the police and detectives as they did not check Ian Huntleys previous convictions etc. before being employed at a school as a caretaker where he met his victims. Also, they didn't follow up on his alibi for the day the girls went missing which furthermore took the police 2 weeks to make an arrest and they also missed vital evidence to do with Ian Huntleys car.

 How members of the investigation work together

Throughout the whole investigation the different members worked together as part of a team. When the investigation first started at the crime scene, the first attending police officer worked with the Scenes of crime officer to establish what had actually happened and what type of evidence they should be looking for, so then the SOCO could correctly collect in in a timely manner Also, they also worked with the police to discuss their findings at the crime scene. The forensic scientists then worked with the police to relay their findings from the evidence taken from the crime scene to make links. The forensics also analysed the Manchester united football shirts found burned at the scene and shared these findings with the police detectives. The police detectives then worked with a specialist computer company which helped enhance the information on Jessica Chapman’s mobile phone. Furthermore, the police also worked with the coroner to establish the cause of death and time of death. Finally, the police detectives, SOCO’s, Forensic Scientists and the pathologist all worked with the crown prosecution service because they all provided evidence in court to secure a conviction against Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr.

Ensuring a secure audit trail

When ensuring a secure audit trail of evidence is established, it can be concluded that some of the members of the investigation team would have been of had more value than others. The most valuable members of an investigation team when securing an audit trail would be the police and the scenes of crime officers. The police would be seen as valuable as they are responsible from the point in which they attend to a crime scene that no one gets in that shouldn't and that no evidence is tampered with. any evidence that is collected the police have to make sure that they protect the scene and the evidence in order to prevent contamination occurring allowing the evidence to be collected in the same condition that it was in when it was originally found. As this is a very important role in ensuring that a secure audit trail is established.

Resubmission

The police involved in the case had to work which each of the members listed, this is because they all worked together to find different pieces of evidence and information and put it together in order to solve the case. The police firstly worked with the detectives In order to tell them what happened when they arrived at the scene, with my case police were alerted that the girls had gone missing from a family party which sparked an investigation, this allowed police to contact investigators who then worked together in order to search for the missing girls and find evidence. This then allows the detectives to make a plan and list of what actions they are going to take next in order to solve the crime. The police then communicate with the SOCO’s when they arrive at the scene to describe to them which parts of the scene they have cordoned off and why. In my case the police and investigators where the people who found the evidence who then communicated with the SOCO’S who came and collected the evidence, the police kept the evidence secure by making a note of the location etc. and cordoning off the scene such as the bin containing Jessica and Hollys t-shirts, police kept them secure by cordoning off the scene which ensured no one could tamper with them this kept the evidence secure and ensured a secure audit trail, this was the same when the girls bodies were found, the police cordoned off then scene then contacted specialists and SOCO’s who came to collect the evidence, the SOCO’s kept the evidence secure by labelling and packaging then passing to the exhibits officer who kept it secure, this ensured that no evidence could be lost as it was all logged. Next the detectives have to communicate with the SOCO’s in order to help them piece the case together, from this they can decide the evidence which needs collecting and what type of analysis is needed of the evidence. The detectives also discuss this with the forensics because they know what type of information they are looking for so they tell the forensics what to search for when analysing, for example in my case the detectives were looking for hair samples of Ian Huntleys and the girls hair samples in the bin that was found so forensics looked especially for any fibres which could like Huntley to the girls. Forensics examines all the evidence to make links who then communicate with detectives to tell them what the evidence shows. Forensics make sure evidence is secure at all times by ensuring it is locked away and re-packaged correctly and labelled, in my case all evidence that was collected was kept secure contributing to the security of the audit trail of evidence.  Then the detectives have the responsibility to contact further people such the pathologists. They communicate with these in order to ensure that further information can be found out involving the case and they have to communicate back to the detectives in order to let them know whether any information can be used against the case in court. In my case pathologists where able to find out if the girls had been sexually abused and exactly how they died, they were also involved in ensuring the body’s where secure so no-one could tamper with evidence. The SOCO’s are mainly used to communicate with the forensics as when they collect the evidence they hand it to the forensics through the chain of custody in order to allow them to analyse it. By communicating and working with the forensics they can tell them what type of evidence to search for, whether it is biological, physical or chemical. Each time a piece of evidence is passed on through a team member in the investigation the evidence has to be logged in to an exhibits book and signed for to say who has handled it and what evidence it is stating the time and date, if this wasn’t done then someone could get hold of the evidence that shouldn’t and could tamper with it contaminating it so by logging the evidence each time it is handled this ensures the security of the audit trail of evidence from when it is found to it being examined and passed back to detectives. In my case each piece of evidence was logged into the exhibits officer and the security of the evidence was strong throughout the investigation and each team member such as the detectives, forensics, SOCO’s etc ensured the security of the evidence.