Positive And Negative Impacts Of Forensic Science On A Criminal Investigation

I will be effectively explaining the positive impacts and negative impacts of Forensic Science. “Forensic science is the application of scientific principles and techniques to matters of criminal justice, including collecting, examining and analyzing of physical evidence. ” ('Medical Definition of FORENSIC SCIENCE', 2019)

Forensic science is used to investigate criminal cases and it helps to explain what has happened such as the exact circumstances within the case, to the court and the victim’s family/associates. If there has been a murder, forensic science ultimately helps to build a picture of exactly what has happened. This is one of the vital reasons as to why it is so important to make sure a case has been worked on correctly, using the correct procedures because if this has not been applied, it can cause a huge hinderance and the case can even fall through if contamination or the incorrect procedure has occurred as this will be known as ‘insufficient evidence’.

Positive impacts are expected in most criminal cases because this means there has been a successful prosecution and the crime has been solved. Technology plays a huge part in Forensic Investigation and is always changing. Forensic Scientists rely highly on technology, over time it becomes more advanced and this is where the use of advanced technology comes in handy. There have been a lot of criminal cases such as murder investigations that haven't been solved for a long period of time. The reason for this could be because they were lacking advanced technology and can be re-opened because of new information being found.

The Stephen Lawrence case was an investigation that was re-opened 25 years later and was successfully solved due to having advanced technology that helped gather more information to find out and solve what exactly had happened.

In 1993 racism was very common and due to this factor, the majority of the nation was not bothered about a black man being murdered. Stephens family had to prove to the nation that he was a “clean-living honest young man with ambitions” to gather the press and public's attention. Metropolitan police officers had already begun to speculate and create a false view of the murder being fueled by “drug-related killing”. Doreen and Neville Lawrence had been campaigning for over five years before Jack Straw from the home secretary announced in July of 1997 a judicial inquiry by Sir William Macpherson into the investigation involving Stephen Lawrence’s murder.

This led to accusations of the investigation involving “institutional racism”. Judge Sir William Macpherson stated: “the collective failure of an organization to provide a professional service … through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantaged minority ethnic people”. This suggests that the amount of racism in this investigation had a huge effect not just on the family of Stephen but on solving the case. ('Stephen Lawrence murder 25 years on: what happened, and did it really change a nation?', 2018)

Multiple witnesses came forwards to identify some of the youths that were attacking Stephen, but the police did not see it as important and postponed the information until they could gather more evidence. There could have been immediate arrests on the suspects, but this was another huge flaw in the case due to the colour of Stephens skin. There were even sightings of one of the suspects leaving a house with bin bags which could easily have been clothing or evidence that they are hiding. (RealCrimeUK, 2012)

Most of the evidence that was gathered had been collected two weeks after Stephens murder. This can cause evidence to become contaminated and therefore cannot be used in a court of law. on May 7th 1993, the police finally decided to search the suspects houses. David Norris was not home when the police were at his house and because of the size of the house and the expense, the police decided to not search the property. The same situation happened with the Acourt brothers and no search was done. The police were also given leads from a member of the public to suggest that the gang hide and keep knifes under their floorboards. This information was aware by the police, but they still chose to not rip any floorboards up and look for hard evidence. Searching the suspects properties would have given the police the chance to find and gather crucial evidence. The police did find clothing and knifes from the suspects, but this wasn’t enough to lead them to impeach. There was not enough evidence nor was there any reliable leads from interviewing the suspects which meant there was only one lead left which was Duwayne Brooks who was with Stephen when he was murdered. Duwayne did identify Luke Knight and Jamie Acourt. He failed to point out the other three suspects which lead to a disastrous outcome to the whole Investigation. (RealCrimeUK, 2012)

The crown court had decided looking at the evidence that there was not enough evidence for the base of a prosecution. This led to an outrage of the public and the whole case got wiped and a new investigation was made. The police placed surveilance cameras into a plug in Gary Dobson's flat hoping for any mention of Stephens murder. The footage the policer got back had no mention about Stephen on there but most of the conversations were racially inflicted. On April 18th, 1996 the investigation went to court with the key witness being Duwayne Brooks. Duwayne was not in a good frame of mind at the time, he had been diagnosed with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) along with being very emotional and feeling a sense of guilt. Duwayne fell apart in the court and because of this the judge ruled the evidence to be inadmissible, without evening seeing the surveillance footage. Gary Dobson, Neil Acourt and Luke Knight were acquitted and could never be tried again for the murder of Stephen Lawrence. (RealCrimeUK, 2012)

Detective Clive Driscole took over the investigation in 2006 and was convinced if there was contact between Stephen and the suspects there would be forensic evidence. Clive had ordered a re-examination of the suspects clothing, at this time forensic science had evolved. Beforehand in the mid 1990’s a chemical screening test would be used to find blood if there were no reactions from the test a microscope would not be used to further look for blood. In the new examination's items were thoroughly examined using microscopes and microscopic amounts of blood can be examined whereas in the first examination this was not yet found out. Gary Dobson’s jacket had been examined and blood was found on the colour of the jacket and had been absorbed into the weave of the fabric which can only result in the blood being wet. A DNA test of the blood was made, and it had been found to match Stephen Lawrence. the blood drop was proven to be wet meaning the blood must have been placed there either during the attack or shortly after. This indicates that the jacket was at the scene of the crime. 3 fibres of Stephens clothing and a hair fibre was found at Norris’s home and seized in 1993. The chances of having fibres from three different items of clothing and hair that is 1 in 10,000 chances of it being Stephens. There was no convicting evidence against the other 3 suspects leading to them not being charged. David Norris and Gary Dobson were both charged with the murder of Stephen Lawrence. (RealCrimeUK, 2012)

Negative impacts can easily happen within the field of Forensics due to professionals making mistakes, we are only human and unfortunately this can happen. However, in the world of Forensics this can have a huge impact on a criminal case, from contaminating evidence which will no longer be used in a court of law due to it being ‘insufficient evidence’ to wrongfully convicting someone of a crime they did not commit. Wrongful conviction can lead to a person being prosecuted for a crime they did not commit, which can ultimately have a devastating impact on their lives, and this will also affect the community lacking faith in the criminal justice system.

There have been a few cases where wrongfully convicting a person has happened such as the David Butler case. In November 2005 the police knocked on Mr. Butlers door who was a retired taxi driver, explaining that they had DNA evidence to suspect him of being connected to the murder of Anne Marie Foy, a 46-year-old sex worker who had been battered and strangled to death in Liverpool. David Butler’s DNA had already been logged onto the UK national database system in connection to a break-in at his home that he currently shared with his mother in 1998.

There was a fragment amount of DNA that matched the DNA under Foy’s fingernail clippings and DNA found on the buttons of her cardigan. There was also CCTV footage of a taxi near the scene of the crime which contributed to the leads of David Butler being near Anne around the time of her death. The prosecutor had explained to the jury “the DNA information provides compelling evidence that the defendant was in contact with Anne Marie at the time immediately before her death. ” Butler stayed adamant that he had never met Anne Marie Foy. There is evidence to say that because the DNA samples from Foy’s nails were believed to be a mixture of profiles and only a fragment match was found belonging to Butler. Foy also had a glittery nail polish on “That is going to retain more DNA for a longer time because there is more opportunity; more things for it to stick to,” There was also evidence to suggest Butler did not commit the murder because Butler has a skim condition that causes his skin to become flaky and a DNA expert addressed that “He was depositing a lot more cells that you might expect from a single touch,” this has argued for the reason as to how the DNA could have been found on Foy’s clothing as it could have been transferred completely innocently such as Foy being in the same place as butler and picking up his DNA on something he had previously touched e. g. a door handle, money. Due to these circumstanced after 8 months Butler was finally acquitted and proven to be innocent. (Davis, 2019).

Reading Butlers case just proves how easy it is to assume someone is guilty of a crime just because there is little evidence, but It is crucial to prove the evidence is sufficient and can be backed up in a court of law.

Another case that suffered a wrongful conviction is the case of Sam Hallam. In 2005 Hallam was convicted of killing Essayas Kassahun in central London in 2004 in a gang-related murder. He was sentenced to a minimum of 12 years in prison. What is interesting particularly about this case is that the police did not investigate his alibi or check two of the mobiles that he was in possession of at the time of the murder. It has also been reported that the witnesses used that accused Hallam of being at the crime scene were in fact unreliable sources. Due to the lack of investigating the case properly, this has led to Sam Hallam spending over 7 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. There was no forensic evidence that could prove Sam Hallam was at the crime scene and the 37 witnesses that were used were asked if they had seen him at the crime and they all denied ever seeing him. It is reported that the main witness that initially placed him at the scene of the fight said to the court she was “just looking for someone to blame on the spot really” ('The man who spent over seven years in jail for a murder he did not commit', 2015) This is a sad case of miscarriage of justice because of simple rules not being followed and the police failing him.