Amateur versus professional
| Author | Lisa L Smith,John W Bond,Jamie Lingwood |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461355714566774 |
| Published date | 01 March 2015 |
| Date | 01 March 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Amateur versus professional:
Does the recovery of forensic
evidence differ depending on
who assesses the crime scene?
Jamie Lingwood
Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, UK
Lisa L Smith
Department of Criminology, University of Leicester, UK
John W Bond
Department of Criminology, University of Leicester, UK
Abstract
Volume crime offences such as domestic burglary are commonly assessed for forensic opportunities by the first attending
officer present at the scene. Conversely, less serious volume crime offences such as thefts from motor vehicles are very
frequent and are routinely assessed for forensic opportunities by the victim talking to the police over the telephone. It is
not clear whether this difference in attendance policy leads to differences in the types and quantity of forensic material
recovered. The current study explored whether there was a benefit to evidence recovery for attended as opposed to
non-attended assessments. Five hundred thefts from motor vehicles offences recorded by Northamptonshire Police
(UK) between 14 January 2010 and 28 February 2011 were analysed; 250 were attended forensic assessments and 250
were non-attended assessments. Significant differences were found between the two scenarios, with attended
assessments more likely to yield DNA, property and trace substance material. Conversely, fingerprints were more
likely to be recovered at non-attended assessments. Despite the fruitful findings of the current study, future research
would benefit from establishing the methods used by the first attending officer and forensic investigator when
assessing and gathering evidence. Similarly, it is unclear whether these differences in forensic material are reflected in
the identification of an offender and subsequently in the solving of the crime.
Keywords
Crime scene, forensic, evidence, recovery, DNA, fingerprints
Submitted 08 Feb 2012, accepted 18 Feb 2013
Introduction
The gathering of forensic intelligence from crime scenes is
widely used to investigate and detect various types of
offences (Bond and Sheridan, 2007). Although such foren-
sic evidence recovery has primarily been used to detect the
perpetrators of serious crimes, such as murder and rape
(Bradbury and Feist, 2005), the assessment of forensic
material is increasingly used to aid the investigation of
volume crimes (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabu-
lary (HMIC), 2002). According to official police statistics,
volume crimes such as thefts and burglaries make up
Corresponding author:
Lisa L Smith, Department of Criminology, University of Leicester, 154
Upper New Walk, Leicester, LE1 7QA, UK.
Email: ls149@le.ac.uk
International Journalof
Police Science & Management
2015, Vol. 17(1) 3–8
ªThe Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1461355714566774
psm.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial