Time and Money In The Investigative Process

THE headline captures two important factors in relation to solving crime. Time is of the essence and cannot be wasted as it is often said the first 24 to 48 hours are critical in a criminal investigation. Investigative success demands early intelligence and information combined with a swift and professional response by all participants.

The second, being money, is for us a scarce resource and so innovation and efficiency must take prominence. It is hardly contentious that while the use of science and technology in investigating crime lends an early, unbiased, positive impact and cuts time, it does bear significant costs. Consequently its use is always a balancing act. A key marker then will be success, or the rate of, and my comments apply be it to the operations of a crime laboratory or CCTV network, both in which incidentally we have registered little success.

In a world of shrinking budgets, law enforcement executives face tough decisions about allocating scarce human and financial resources and so effective utilization and efficiency must be the watchwords. Time has shown a number of anti crime and investigative support services worldwide falling victim, some even death, to operational inefficiency. As a small and struggling country, St. Lucia falls smack into the dilemmas of such situations and so good sense, efficiency and the experiences of ours and others must be given prominence.

I will confine comments to just one area. To date, the cost to the state of the 2002 criminal investigations and still undetermined gruesome murder of Verlinda Joseph is a staggering figure. Most of the expenses were incurred from the scientific investigative advancement of the case conducted first regionally and later internationally by a British forensic service establishment. In the continuing years and again at high costs, scientific advancements were pursued in a number of other homicide investigations, nearly all centering on DNA examinations conducted by the same British service. Around that time two colleague friends of mine who headed forensic services in their islands indicated that their response to that particular establishment was that it was way too expensive. They obtained cheaper alternative international services as there are many credible ones around. For us, decisions to stick with that service were made by successive government administrations, even when a credible, more accessible and cheaper alternative was offered. Due to finances and inefficiency that British establishment eventually collapsed.

The consequences of us referring exhibits to overseas forensic laboratories are many. Costs are a major factor as referrals incur double expenses of return air fares and hotel accommodation for police officers who have to accompany the exhibits both to deliver and later collect them from the laboratory. Also there are the laboratory’s often high charges and again return airfares, hotel accommodation and court appearance fees for the overseas expert(s) at the time of trial.

Time is another issue. The mere fact case exhibits have to be referred for forensic examinations immediately eliminates the aspect of forensic intelligence, critical in giving early direction to our investigative officers. The mandatory initial scientific documentation and administrative procedures to prepare exhibits for travel are tedious and often lengthy. Much of that is to document evidence history and maintain integrity so as to satisfy strict rules governing evidence admissibility. The downside of referrals is the more steps there are and persons handling exhibits, the greater the potential for errors, contamination and a compromise of exhibit integrity. All of that can be to the detriment of case success at trial.

In cases where our exhibits to be sent away are not initially thoroughly screened, whether through a lack of trace evidence laboratory expertise or laboratory closure (both for which our laboratory is a victim of) means that unnecessary bulk work will be sent to the overseas laboratory first for initial mass screening (more expense), before the actual examinations are conducted. Not a prospect enjoyed by staff in overseas laboratories we are then often on the back burner or at their mercy. Further, even with nice promises made, overseas laboratories too have their own domestic work and for which they will always give priority. So it is largely such, together with the expression ‘out of sight out of mind’ that causes long times to elapse and with critical delays before results can be finally obtained. Often that slows the investigative process.

That forensics is never always a guarantee makes financial investments in referrals dicey and so decision making must be prudent and strategic in bringing them to an absolute minimum. In that regard referral issues of time, money and potential for attending errors always concerned me and so I saw the establishment of our modern crime laboratory as not only a progressive step but also a way of addressing the referral situation and making us largely independent for our immediate forensic needs. Further, since DNA testing was our main referral, a colleague of mine and I recommended in 2008 that our laboratory be additionally fitted with a DNA capability, then not on the original design. A modern 2010 laboratory could hardly have been without that option.

To fast forward, the closure of our new laboratory will have many consequences, some I addressed previously. Meanwhile as new case work accumulates, unfortunately a full circle and return to the days of referrals (now mass referrals) with all of its issues will be our only option, even as for likely every referred test our laboratory is fully equipped to perform. It will not be sustainable for government to continue referring such case work whilst still having to spend money to upkeep a dormant facility. Therefore many hard decisions will have to be made as to the future of the laboratory, government’s future role, a possible private or public private venture partnership, a possible OECS involvement and or arrangement, staffing and the resolution of the many issues which have been plaguing the laboratory and which precipitated its closure.

The laboratory is a specialist well equipped facility and cannot be just neglected or converted into some other venture and so a workable formula must be urgently found. The problem is my word ‘urgently’ will have to be tempered by the necessary time and transparency to ensure through informed and serious decision making that everything necessary to effect corrections and bring the laboratory to proper and full operational readiness has been done. Rectification to its damaged credibility has to be effected and a renewed confidence injected and promoted.