Alexander Lindsay Mcleod: An Investigator Case Study

Police : Can investigate/prosecute any crimes that have been committed and secure any evidence, to support victims, raise awareness of crimes.

The body of this paper will examine the case of Pamela Foddrill and compare what happened in that real criminal investigation to the theory of criminal investigation discussed in our course textbook, Criminal Investigation: The Art and the Science. I will first examine the forensics evidence and

The investigative details of the Pamela Foddrill case remained very similar to criminal theory in most ways, but not all. In Lyman’s Criminal Investigations, there are eight steps detailed

The research paper I am conducting is on Lizzie Borden who was accused of murdering her father and stepmother in 1892 with a hatchet. Due to failed investigation and lack of technology at the time, Lizzie was released and acquitted of all charges. In this paper I will point out what the police did not do properly during the investigation, as well as what I would have done differently.

Police have the power to investigate crimes, make arrests, interrogate suspects and gather evidence against the accused. Using their powers under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (2002) (NSW), police arrested Jessica Silva on the day she committed the offence, 13 May 2012 as they had reasonable grounds to suspect she committed the murder. She was shortly charged with the murder of James Polkinghorne. Police then conducted an interrogation which was recorded in an ERISP of an interview with the accused. The offence was most likely reported on the day by the accused or an eyewitness and Silva was immediately taken into custody. This report most likely came from calling the police on the emergency 000 number. The police also used their powers to investigate the crime in order to be sufficient enough to present a case against the accused in court. The gathering of evidence in this case involved the taking of eye witness statements, statements from those involved including Silva, her brother and her father, and taking photos of the crime scene. It is important that this evidence is obtained carefully and not tampered with, otherwise it would be inadmissible. The police have used technology in investigating the crime through the phone tapping of Polkinghorne’s phone, and the seizing of the SMS messages sent between Silva and Polkinghorne prior to the murder. The phone taps were admissible as they were obtained legally with a warrant, despite being for the investigation of a separate offence. The police were allowed to arrest and detain Silva on the 13 May 2012 because they had reasonable grounds that she committed the illegal offence. The police must issue her a caution, stating why they have arrested her and that if she were to say something it could be used in court against her. The interrogation or asking of questions was

Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 signified the requirements of legal justifications when conducting unwarranted arrests, and further expresses the importance of the right to personal liberty as it is ‘the most fundamental of the human rights recognised under the common law.’ It was evident to the Judges that at least one officer held reasonable suspicion that “the suspect” had committed an indictable offence, but the lawfulness of the arrest was inevitably questioned as to whether an officer with reasonable suspicion was the arresting officer. The judgements in favour of the appellants heightens the need for officers to use their powers within the ‘confines of the law’ when ‘forcibly arrest[ing] and detaining’ a person as to preserve the right to personal liberty, for once this right is left in the power of any authority, to imprison arbitrarily whomever they suspect, ‘there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities.’

The case of Kusmider v. State, 688 P.2d 957 (Alaska App. 1984), was a state appeal’s court case that addressed the chain of causation for a murder, which had occurred, and the actions of the trial court judge (Brody & Acker, 2010). In this case, the appellant, Kusmider, appealed his conviction for second degree murder, based on the fact that the trial judge did not let him introduce evidence, which may have shown that the victim may have survived his wounds, if not for the actions of the paramedics.

The NSW police force also follows a specific code of behaviour called the code of practice for CRIME (custody, rights, investigation, management and evidence) which sets out the rights of the suspect and the manner in which the investigation should be carried out, it also includes that all citizens must be treated fairly regardless of race, religion, ethnic background and sex. Police are not allowed to detain a person unless they have good reason to do so, if enough evidence and a warrant is issued the police may arrest someone for the crime they are investigating. The accused will be held in police custody for questioning, this is known as interrogation. At the end of the detention period the police will make a decision whether the suspect will attend a court hearing or be released unconditionally. If the accused believes that this procedure has not been adhered to appropriately they have the right to report their opinion through a complaints procedure overseen by the NSW ombudsmen and the police integrity commission. (Case)

``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the

This is an attempt to unravel the tangle by an objective and empirical examination of information from crime scene and post mortem examination of the victims. Pre-digested information such as speculative newspaper reports, and statements from witnesses other than those called in a professional capacity have been avoided since theirs is largely subjective testimony that confounds more than it informs.

In The Red Parts: An Autobiography of a Trial, Maggie Nelson, the author tells the story about her aunt who was murdered in 1969 and how her family suffers through the reopening of the case. Maggie’s aunt, Jane Mixer, was found dead, shot in the back of the head twice, strangled, and then was left unceremoniously, abandoned in a cemetery. Because of the way Jane’s murder was presented, she was thought to be part of a killing spree. During the initial investigation, the police arrested a suspect in 1970 and he was sentenced to life in prison. In 2005 however, Maggie’s family got a call from a detective explaining that he might have a new lead in Jane’s murder and that the man that they originally arrested for it, was innocent after all. He had “every reason to believe [that] this case [was] moving swiftly towards a successful conclusion” (Nelson 1).

Every detainee must have a custody record opened for them when in police detention. All information is recorded here by the custody sergeant with relevant times and dates also recorded, verified by the custody officer’s signature (PACE act 1984). The Custody record is an ‘open’ document that must be made available to the defence, a detainee’s solicitor is entitled to see the custody record the moment of arrival at a designated police station and must be given a copy at request any time within 12 months of the detainee leaving police detention or coming before the courts. It is the Custody Sergeants responsibility to make sure that the custody record is kept up to date, accurate, and complete. The detainees must also be read out their three basic rights under code C of the PACE act, these rights are the right to have somebody informed of their arrest, the right to consult with a solicitor and be given free legal advice and the right to consult the codes of practice (YourRights 2007). The Custody officer must also assess mental health and identify any communication barriers; this may result in the need for an interpreter or possibly even the consultation of a doctor. They must also review any evidence relating to the investigation and decide whether there is a sufficient amount to charge or whether the detainee must be kept in custody so more evidence can be obtained. The custody officer must determine whether he

In order for a trial to be brought, the police and prosecutors might be able to prove that the elements of the particular offence are present. In this criminal case both Actus reus, Mens rea as well causation was clearly shown through the behavior of Katherine Knight.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss and analyze the practices conducted by law enforcement during the investigation of the murder of Ashley Smith. The following pages will discuss the crime scene investigation, the evidence collection, the investigative steps following the initial crime scene investigation, the interviews of witnesses and suspects, and other strategies performed by the acting case investigators. Constitutional challenges have surfaced regarding specific pieces of critical evidence and a section of this paper will analyze the admissibility of this evidence. Lastly this case’s law enforcement processes will be contrasted with textbook processes in an effort to determine the validity of the case’s outcome.

Criminal investigators are professionals in the law enforcement team who try to solve crimes, prevent the occurrence of future crimes, and searching and detaining suspects. The two categories of criminal investigators are private and public criminal investigators. The level of training that these professionals go through is different which leads us to the differences between public and private criminal investigations.