Collecting the Evidence.

When collecting evidence it is important that each member if the investigation team follow to correct procedures, as named in the previous pages. The scenes of crime officers are to wear personal protective equipment such are gloves, masks, soco suits, shoe protectors and sometimes even goggles.  The personal protective equipment is to ensure that nothing is transmitted to the evidence causing potential cross-contamination, which would then lead to any analysis of the evidence to be determined as not valid, meaning that it would not be admissible to be used in court.

Speaking to the first attending officer is very significant as they can give information that may not be obvious by looking at the scene. The first attending officer can give various amounts of detailed information which can help with the investigation of the scene such as what actually happened at the scene. This includes knowing what evidence would be appropriate to and benefit the case, making it easier for this evidence to be collected. Witnesses may also have spoken to the first attending officer meaning these statements can give additional information about what occurred. Gathering all of this material from the first attending officer can make the investigation process much more effective, and prevent any unconnected evidence being collected and any necessary evidence being contaminated or left behind.

 It is extremely important that the evidence is collected in the correct way using the correct equipment. For example bodily fluids, such as blood, saliva and semen would be collected using a cotton swab and put into the correct packaging such as a tube. Hair and fibres would be collected using tweezers and any suspected drug substances would be collected using sterilised spoons and spatulas. The reason that specific pieces of evidence are collected using specific equipment is to prevent the evidence being damaged or contaminated during the collection, therefore preserving the reliability of the evidence. Before evidence is collected it should also be photographed using scales so that the size of evidence can be gauged from looking at the photographs. Evidence is also photographed for reasons such as if the evidence were to be misplaced, the photographs can often be used in place as the actual evidence. However, if the photograph isn’t clear enough, then it will not be admissible in the courtroom.

If a crime scene has specific evidence which is needed to be analysed by a specialist at the scene, the scenes of crime officers and the police should ensure that this evidence is not messed with as much as possible and that potential evidence is protected. This could include things such as a body that has to be examined at the crime scene by a pathologist or doctor.

When relating back to the procedure of collecting evidence at the scene of the double murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, it is fairly obvious that the procedure was not carried out correctly. 

The main pieces of evidence that were collected from the scene were: the glove, the bodies of Nicole and Ron, and blood (which they suspected came from O.J.)

Firstly, there was no first attending officer as all of the detectives had arrived at the crime scene at the same time. This meant there were some communication issues because not everyone knew what had happened. A number of problems were caused due to this such as evidence being damaged, not collected, and disregarded straight away.

The next example of the break of this procedure was that the scene was contaminated right from the beginning. A blanket had been placed over the bodies by Detective Lange after an immense amount of media began to turn up to the scene, filming and photographing the horrific sights of both Nicole and Ronald’s bodies. The blanket that was placed over them both had left fibre on the bodies, which contaminated the bodies. The blanket had also transferred DNA from previous people that had used it onto the bodies, meaning that the DNA on the bodies of the victims could not correctly be matched up to the suspect. Because of this, all of the evidence that was collected from the body was thrown out of court as it was no longer admissible, reliable or valid.

Another breach of the procedures was the photographs being taken without using scales, and without showing any of the area that the evidence was recovered from. Due to this, measurements of the evidence were not identified correctly, and nobody was able to correctly point out to where the evidence was collected from on the scene. This led to a lot of confusion to the layout of the scene, and resulted in the pictures not being able to be used correctly in the court of law.

Finally, another example of how the collection procedure was done wrong was that the Scenes of crime officers contaminated other pieces of evidence by wearing the same gloves with each piece they handled, and using the same tweezers to pick things up. This resulted in blood evidence being mixed in with other evidence such as other bodily fluids, all cross-contaminating each other.

This case is known for the evidence being invalid in court due to problems with collection and packaging. The detectives at the OJ Simpson case were found to be collecting evidence with their bare hands, when they should have been wearing gloves in order to prevent the evidence from being contaminated. Because of this, evidence was destroyed as soon as the officers came into contact with it. All PPE should be worn when collecting evidence; however the officers at the scene collected the majority of the evidence without wearing any PPE. This resulted in the evidence being contaminated by the detectives, leaving them to be invalid and unreliable when in court.

When evidence has been collected at the scene of the crime, it must be placed into an evidence bag, and sealed in order to prevent any contamination from occurring whilst it is being transported from the crime scene to the forensics laboratory for further testing.

There are several different types of evidence bags that are used for different types of evidence. The range of bags available at the scene include: plastic bags which can have test tubes containing swabs of biological evidence placed into them, paper evidence bags can have evidence with biological evidence on it placed into them, such as items of clothing that are covered in blood, or pieces of evidence that have suspected fingerprints on them. Paper bags are greater than using plastic bags when they contained an exposed piece of biological evidence, as they allow the fluids to dry correctly if they’re wet, which prevents the evidence from deteriorating from the condensation, which is what happens when wet evidence is placed into a plastic bag. Boxes can also be used to collect evidence such as weapons like knives or hammers. The boxes allow the evidence to be secured in order to prevent it from moving around, and the boxes are much more stable and stronger compared to the bags, meaning they can withstand the weight of the evidence. It also prevents the sharp evidence from piercing though the bags. Containers are also used at a crime scene to collect evidence such as drugs. The containers are used for this as they can be safely sealed to prevent contamination.

The evidence collected at the OJ Simpson case was not packaged correctly causing most of it to be cross-contaminated. Pieces of evidence were collected and packaged mainly in paper bags meaning pieces of evidence that are not safe in paper bags, such as blood, were destroyed. As simple paper bags were used, the evidence was not kept secure as the bags were not correctly sealed. The paper bags were not official evidence bags also, meaning they are not as secure and safe as they should be when holding evidence. This also means that tampering with evidence was easy to carry out, and evidence could easily be contaminated. If plastic evidence bags were used the evidence would have been more likely to be kept secure, reducing the chance of contamination.

Evidence tags are necessary for identification of the evidence in the packaging. They relate the evidence to the case ensuring it is not mishandled throughout the investigation. The tags have information such as: who collected it, when it was collected, where it was collected, what case it belongs to, and what exactly it is. All this information ensures the evidence does not get lost and that everyone coming into contact with it knows exactly what it is. Tags are necessary for the Chain of Custody and the audit trail, which tells who has dealt with the evidence so that it is possible to know if there had been any issues when the evidence had been passed to other people. It also helps in cases where evidence had been lost or contaminated after it had been passed for analysis.

Tagging evidence was not a huge issue in the Simpson case as no evidence had been lost after collection due to passing it to other people. The evidence was tagged correctly telling who it was collected by and when/where it had been collected, meaning it would be possible to keep track of where the evidence had been and who had been dealing with it.

In the Simpson case, many detrimental errors can be identified during the bagging process. To start with, separate pieces of blood evidence, belonging to three different people were all placed inside the same evidence bags. This led to all of the blood evidence becoming contaminated, further leading to the evidence being thrown out of court as it was unreliable and untrustworthy.

Not only this, but soaking blood-stained items were packaged in plastic evidence bags. As stated above, wet items are not to go into plastic bags at it causes condensation which can destroy the evidence. This led to a drastic change in the validity of the evidence due to the degradation of DNA by the bacteria from the condensation within the plastic evidence bag. Due to this mistake, no results could be obtained from the DNA analysis. The evidence found on the clothing could have had an extremely significant part to play in the case when it comes to identifying the perpetrator, but due to how the evidence was handled, it led to a detrimental error within the case.

(click here for a more detailed analysis about the evidence collected at the scene, and the analysis of the evidence in the labs).

(click here for a detailed analysis on the presentation of the findings within this case).