Team members contribution

Police- (FAO)

A police is called to the scene and can also be called as a First attending officer. In my investigation the first attending officer was pc Bruce, who was also the police officer. He contributed to the crime by interviewing Sion Jenkins in order to find out information on what had occurred during the scene. He then also secured the scene by placing a tent up, this is because the scene occurred outside and by placing a tent up it prevented the weather contaminating any evidence. The strengths of PC Bruce interviewing Sion Jenkins was that he found out further information about the case which could be passed on to SOCO’s so they knew what the correct evidence was to collect and what evidence they were looking for. Another strength was this if that if it was secured correctly it could be used as a witness statement against Sion Jenkins in court, in order to either show him to be guilty or not guilty. The weaknesses are that even by writing down what was said in the witness statement it could not have been 100% reliable. Recording the witness statement would be most reliable because then a vocal piece of evidence could have been shown in court, so what Sion Jenkins said could have been analysed. The strengths of placing the tent up to secure the scene was that it prevented the weather conditions from contaminating the evidence, such as strong winds or rain, these would have contaminated the evidence because it could of mixed with certain substances such as blood. The weaknesses of the police officer putting the tent up unattended was that it wasn’t logged in the log book, this could mean that the police officer could of contaminated with the scene while placing the tent up and not realised that the tent had been placed over certain evidence. This would then mean that the certain piece of evidence which has been contaminated can’t be used in court against a suspect in the case.  The evidence which was handled by the FAO police was the witness statement. This is because the witness statement was taken from the police at the scene when he first arrived and questioned Sion Jenkins, he handled this evidence because it was his responsibility to write down the information found out by the witness statement. Sion Jenkins witness statement wasn’t recorded or reported down by the police officer which shows me that PC Bruce didn’t keep the evidence secure. It wasn’t collected at all and was just left as a memory. It was the FAO’s responsibility to ensure the evidence of the witness statement was kept secure because he collected this piece of evidence. They incorrectly handled the evidence found and it should have been recorded as soon as it was being taken either by writing notes or recording on a tape recorder. This would be to ensure that it can be re-read or viewed in court and any information Sion Jenkins gave could have related to the case. This would have been very beneficial to the case because Sion Jenkins was a suspect and convicted of a crime based on some facts of the story of the case, so if his witness statement was taken and recorded down it could of have important evidence which shows he is either keeping to the same story, or changing his story throughout. If his originally witness statement was slightly different or noticeable different to the stories he gave afterwards it could show that he was making up a story to cover himself up which could reveal that he was responsible for this crime. This mistake would have been enough to ruin the case because if they had his original witness statement, it will be to the best of his memory and would have had current information on the case. This would have been one of the most useful pieces of evidence to the case because it meant that his witness statement could have been reviewed and he could have been questioned and interviewed once again to see whether he was keeping to the same story or changing it. Pc Bruce, took a witness statement but didn’t record it which meant that the piece of evidence was destroyed because it was not handled correctly by Pc Bruce. He did not record the information and therefor made the evidence unusable.  This damaged the evidence which would have been used in court, because the information Pc Bruce obtained was contaminated. The other part of evidence Pc Bruce was involved in was the body of Billie-Jo. When the police arrived, he saw the body was on the floor, but Sion Jenkins had claimed that he went over to hug Billie-Jo Jenkins when he found her dead and when she exhaled the blood splattered from her mouth onto him. But also Sion Jenkins was found with 128 microscopic blood splattered marks on his shirt which could be related to the beating of her with the tent peg. If the police officer saw the body on the floor he should of covered this first to prevent people from going over to the body and contaminating it. Such as Sion Jenkins, although he was Billie-Jo’s step farther, he was also a suspect and by letting him over to the body he could of used it as a cover up of the microscopic blood spots found on his shirt. If the body was covered up quick enough it would of ensured that no one could of messed with it and contaminated any evidence involving the body. This would also be an ethical issue because the family should be allowed to see the body of their killed daughter, but because Sion Jenkins was a suspect, the body should have been kept secured away from him by the police. This mistake was important but didn’t cost the case, because Sion Jenkins was still put away due to the blood splatters found on his shirt. This piece of evidence was firstly looked at as Sion Jenkins beating Billie-Jo and causing her blood to splatter onto him, but when it was further looked into it was revealed that Sion Jenkins was hugging his daughter and that could of caused the blood splatters. If the body was kept secure and safe by the police officer it would of prevented this confusion from occurring. This would have been most useful to the investigation because if Sion Jenkins hadn’t come in contact with the body and had no splatters on his shirt it would show that he wasn’t responsible but because of the confusion he was convicted of the crime. This could of caused a mistake to the case because of what the blood splatters represented. This was probably the most damaging piece of evidence in the case because it wasn’t clear what the real cause of the blood splatters are.

Detectives-

In my case there was four detectives and they contributed to the case by interviewing and questioning people who they thought were a suspect, there main thought on a suspect was Sion Jenkins. These detectives then made links within the investigation to another person who could have been a suspect. This was done in later years. They found out by Billie-Jo’s friends that she was being followed by a man known as the M58 rapist. He was identified to wear similar clothing to the person Billie-Jo explained and had been in the area staying at his girlfriends. By making links with other people and finding information out about criminals nearby that area they could use this to find another suspect. The strengths of finding out about the area and current events that have occurred was that they could look for more suspects to ensure the correct person is prosecuted. Another strength is that by searching and gaining more intelligence on a case means that the case can be finished quicker and a right prosecution will be made. The weaknesses of using knowledge could be that there could be a lot of people that could be suspects in the area and by finding more suspects it means there is more work into the case which could also drag it out longer rather than shorten the time of it. Another weakness in my case is that the detective’s starting investigating into other suspects too late when most the evidence surroundings the suspects had been contaminated by then. The detectives were responsible in handling the body from the forensics. Their objective was to analyse how the blood splatters came on Sion Jenkins shirt either from him beating her, or her exhaling blood onto him. They kept the evidence of the body secure by ensuring the forensics had control over it and by just examining their results and questioning what could have caused the blood splatter. The other piece of evidence they also came into contact with was Sion Jenkins shirt with the blood splatters on because by looking at this it meant that they could have an idea of how the splatters were caused. They had to ensure when looking at the evidence with the forensics that the forensics kept it secure in case the case needed reviewing in a future date. From the evidence that they handled and analysed they got an aerosol chemist. The role of the aerosol chemist was to analyse if the blood splatters could be caused from Billie-Jo when she exhaled onto Sion Jenkins as he hugged her. It was shown by the aerosol chemist, when experimented on a pig that when a person is dying is exhaling splatters of blood can come out. From the detectives handling the evidence and searching further into it, it then meant that it was useful to the investigation because it allowed them to come to a conclusion that the blood splatters could have been caused due to exhalation. Because the evidence of the body wasn’t correctly secured it meant that more investigations involving the blood splatters had to be done. The original mistake of not securing the body would have been enough to cost the case and it originally was when Sion Jenkins was first prosecuted, but then when the case was opened again the mistake made involving the body was reviewed and more evidence was found against it. This evidence showing that it was possible for Billie-Jo to have exhaled the blood allowed Sion Jenkins to do his appeal and be released. This was the most beneftical piece of evidence to the case that the detectives happened. By overlooking the error and mistake made and finding out if the information and facts given by Sion Jenkins could have been true it allowed them to search for other suspects. Overall when the detectives where analysing the evidence found they ensured it was secure trail by ensuring the forensics then kept it in a safe place as they knew the case would need reviewing.

SOCO’s-

The SOCO’s in my case were Mr Mckirdy and Mr Webster as these were the forensics scientists and analysed the crime scene. Their contribution to the case was to collect the evidence which most related to how Billie-Jo Jenkins was murdered and any clues to who it was.  They collected the body of Billie-Jo Jenkins, the tent peg which was the suspected weapon, the shirt of Sion Jenkins and a bin bag from her nose, which was found shoved up there. The strengths of the SOCO’s are that they collected the evidence which was most relevant to the case in order to obtain information about the case. Such as the tent peg was collected so it could be fingerprinted and the person who was handling this ‘weapon’ while battering Billie-Jo with it could be found. The weaknesses of the evidence collected was that it wasn’t handled correctly and this caused most of it to be overlooked due to the contamination caused on it. The detectives arrived at the scene, which has been cordoned off by the FAO and entered they found a bin bag shoved inside Billie-Jo Jenkins nose and removed it without gloves or a SOCO suit on. This completely contaminated this piece of evidence because not only did they remove it but they threw it to the side not realising this could be a useful piece of evidence, this evidence was revealed in a later date when it was known a rapist of the area was raping and killing young girls and putting a bin bag up their nose. But because the bin bag was pulled out and thrown away it meant that it couldn’t be tested for fingerprints, DNA or hair samples because the forensics weren’t wearing PPE.  This prevented a secure audit trail of the case. This mistake wouldn’t have been bad enough to cost the case because at the time their only main suspect was Sion Jenkins because they believed he was responsible, but if they did further research at the time and knew more knowledge on the neighbourhood, they would have found out that the reoccurring rapist was killing his victims and leaving bin bags in their nose. This then would of meant when the SOCO’s saw this piece of evidence they would of worn full PPE and collected it correctly and then it could have been analysed to see if it matched up to the other suspect. This wasn’t a main part of the case until a later time when the case was reviewed again because Sion Jenkins called for an appeal. This wasn’t the most valuable piece of information in the case at the time, but should have been collected properly because even something that doesn’t seem like important evidence can be when the case is reviewed again. The mistake made of collecting evidence without PPE contaminated the evidence and damaged the fingerprints which might have been present which shows it can’t be used in court or against the case to find a suspect. The next piece of evidence taken was the tent peg. Correct procedures were carried out while collecting this piece of evidence such as wearing correct PPE, ensuring gloves were on and that it was packaged correctly. But while researching my case I have found out that forensics did not test this piece of evidence for DNA, fingerprints or hair samples. The weapon was correctly collected which shows that it has been handled correctly, but during the chain of custody it was not correctly analysed. This could either show me that there was no evidence present involving the case or that when the forensics handled it they didn’t analyse it. See more in section on the Forensics involvement on the case. Another piece of evidence the SOCO’s where involved with was the body of Billie-Jo Jenkins, this was collected correctly with all the procedures but was already contaminated before the forensics could collect it because the scene wasn’t cordoned off quick enough and Sion Jenkins was handling the body. But when the SOCO’s collected the body they packaged it correctly and sent it to the pathologists to find out more results. See Pathologists involvement section. Another piece of evidence the SOCO’s handled and collected was the top of Sion Jenkins which had 128 microscopic blood particles on it. This wasn’t collected straight away which could of meant that Sion Jenkins had time to create a story on why there was blood on his top. The handling security of this piece of evidence wasn’t done correctly by the SOCO’s. Luckily this didn’t cause a mistake to the case because it was still collected but much later on but it still had blood splatters on it. This piece of evidence was the main reason Sion Jenkins was prosecuted because it was thought that he got these splatters on his top when he battered her to death. So if his top wasn’t correctly collected and handled it would have been enough to cost the case. This was a valuable piece of evidence because it was enough to allow Sion Jenkins to be convicted of committing the crime. This error was luckily not damaging enough to the case or evidence because it was still remembered to be collected, just a bit later on. If it was collected early enough it might have been identified how old the blood was which could give an idea to whether he got it from battering Billie-Jo or from hugging her goodbye.

Forensics-

In my case the forensic were sent evidence to analyse, this evidence was the tent peg, the body and the 128 microscopic blood spots on Sion Jenkins clothing.  They contributed to the case by analysing the evidence collected from the SOCO’s and this evidence was then analysed to find out more information about the case. When the SOCO’s send the evidence to the forensics it must be ensured that the evidence is kept secure and analysed correctly to ensure a secure audit trail. 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 first piece of evidence they were sent was the tent peg, this wasn’t analysed correctly from the forensics as it wasn’t searched for fingerprints, DNA or hair samples which should have been present. This could have been due to the fact that the forensics didn’t get the evidence correctly in the chain of custody, for example if could have been left out somewhere and contaminated before the forensics got chance to analyse it. This piece of evidence could have been a big enough mistake to cause the wrong person to be prosecuted because by not analysing the weapon correctly it makes it difficult for them to know who was involved in using the weapon to batter Billie-Jo. If this weapon was analysed correctly it would have meant that another suspect or an idea of a suspect could be found by looking at fingerprints, hair samples or DNA. The error of not analysing the tent peg was very damaging to the case because it was a clear piece of evidence that should have been analysed which makes me think that something occurred along the chain of custody part which prevented the evidence from being able to be analysed. This would have been a useful piece of evidence to be analysed because it was found to be used in the battering of Billie-Jo Jenkins. The bin bag which was contaminated by the SOCO’s couldn’t be sent to the forensics for analysis because it wasn’t collected properly and therefor there wouldn’t be valid evidence to find on it. This is mainly because the evidence was handled incorrectly by the SOCO’s and therefor unusable. The body was also analysed by the forensics. When the body was collected there was no contamination done to it and it was packaged correctly. The only problem was that Sion Jenkins had handled the body when he found it, this then prevented the forensics from analysing the body for fingerprints or hair samples because Sion Jenkins was the only suspect at the time and the evidence found would match up to that. When the forensics obtained they sent it to the pathologists to be analysed to see if the suspected weapon the ‘tent peg’ is what Billie-Jo was battered with. They had to ensure the body was kept secure and passed through the chain of custody correctly. Sion Jenkins top with the blood splatter found on was then analysed and it was shown and identified to be Billie-Jo Jenkins blood. From this it meant that Sion Jenkins was prosecuted due to the thought that the blood splatters were caused from him battering Billie-Jo. But when sent to the aerosol chemist it was identified it could be due to Sion Jenkins hugging Billie-Jo. The problem with the security of this evidence was that it was processed and collected wrong. The top wasn’t collected by the SOCO’s until a later time after they released it could be related to the crime and it wasn’t processed correctly until the aerosol chemist got involved after Sion Jenkins appealed. This mistake that was made by the forensics was that they didn’t use their knowledge to listen to the information given by Sion Jenkins to send it to the aerosol chemists to analyse what was the real cause of the blood splatters, if this was done quicker while the evidence was still clear it might of caused an acquittal of the correct person. This mistake didn’t cost the case because it was reviewed again at a later date, but it would have been more beneficial at the time so that the wrong person wouldn’t have been prosecuted.

This was one of the most valuable pieces of evidence because it was the evidence that caused Sion Jenkins to be prosecuted and when reviewed it was the piece of evidence that allowed his appeal to occur. When furthered researched into it meant that Sion Jenkins was released and the case was unknown to whether he did it or not so he did not return to prison. By not involving an aerosol chemist it would have meant that the blood splatters would have not been fully reviewed and Sion Jenkins appeal would have not been adhered to.

Aerosol chemist-

In my case the aerosol chemist was Mr Mcaughey. The forensics in my investigation found 186 microscopic blood splatters on Sion Jenkins and sent them to an aerosol chemist for further analysis to see whether these were an impact from attacking Billie-Jo Jenkins. Or whether these were an impact of Billie-Jo’s last breath. Mr Mcaughey experimented using a pig and confirmed these where an impact of Billie-Jo’s final breath which caused her to cough up blood on Sion. This made the investigation harder and more confusing as the 186 microscopic blood splatters were the main reason Sion was acquitted. The only piece of evidence the aerosol chemist handled was the shirt with the blood splatters on. They contributed to the case by analysing whether when a person was dying they could exhale and splatter blood. The results came back to show it was possible, which allowed Sion Jenkins to be released when he appealed. The aerosol chemist had to ensure when passed the shirt as evidence that they kept it secure so while travelling through the chain of custody, each member involved gets the shirt to the best of its use. The strengths of the contribution of the aerosol chemist was that it was ensured that the shirt was kept safe and that by analysing the way blood splatters during exhalation it proved Sion Jenkins not guilty and he was released. The other strengths was that because the evidence was kept secure it meant that it could be further analysed by more people in the future if needed to and more information could be found out relating to the case. The disadvantages of the aerosol chemist being involved was that it can cost the detectives and the case more money in order to find out information. Another weakness is that it can be confusing when evidence is over analysed because it is hard to find out the actual cause of the evidence. For example the blood splatters on Sion Jenkin top, it was either due to him battering her or her exhaling. But the strength of this is that the correct acquittal can be made. This wouldn’t have been a mistake big enough to cost the case but was used when Sion Jenkins appealed and needed further analysis into his case. It would have been enough to cost the appeal and would have caused Sion to not be released. This was valuable to the second part of the investigation process because it meant that Sion Jenkins was able to be released.

Pathologists-

The objective of the pathologists in my case was to analyse the body and identify what has occurred through damage. By this contribution it means that more evidence and information can be found relating to the body such as what damage has occurred in order to have killed Billie-Jo Jenkins. By getting the body from the forensics the pathologists must ensure they keep it secure because it will be need to be analysed for more evidence on the case. If the evidence of the body is not kept secure it means that the pathologists won’t analyse the evidence to the full potential because there is a risk it has been contaminated. By contributing to the case the strengths is that a further analysis will be made of the body which allowed them to identify that the weapon Billie-Jo was battered with was the tent peg. This is because of the marking and in dents which with left in her chest and head. This can then made that they can relay the information back to the detectives who can then tell the forensics to analyse the tent peg for biological evidence such as fingerprints or hair samples. The disadvantages with analysing the body is that it can cause ethical issues such as having to destroy parts of Billie-Jo’s body in order for the full analysis to occur. If the body wasn’t taken to the pathologists to be analysed it would have cost the case because it would of meant that they wouldn’t know the weapon which was responsible for causing her death. This wasn’t the most useful piece of evidence because the tent peg was found with blood on it shows that it was related to the murder of Billie-Jo but by ensuring a pathologist analyses it , it can give a definite answer to the detective and allow more information to be used in court to come to a conclusion. By not analysing the body using pathologist it could of damaged and wasted the use of collecting the body because by ensuring it was the right weapon which caused the death.

How did all the criminal investigation members involved help the case as a whole?

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. The police firstly worked with the detectives In order to tell them what happened when they arrived at the scene, 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. Also they have to communicate to the SOCO’s to describe the case to them and let them know which evidence is best to collect. This then makes it easier for the SOCO’s to know what they are looking for and can make it easier for them to find more evidence. 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 searching for hair samples. Then the detectives have the responsibility to contact further people such as the ‘aerosol chemist’ and 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. The SOCO’s are mainly used to communicate with the forensics 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.