A strategy for the forensic detection of distraction burglary
| Author | John W Bond |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461355716667526 |
| Date | 01 December 2016 |
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
A strategy for the forensic detection
of distraction burglary
John W Bond OBE
Department of Criminology, University of Leicester, UK
Abstract
Although much reduced in recent years, distraction burglary involving elderly or vulnerable victims continues to make up
*4% of recorded UK domestic burglaries. Detection of these offences by forensic means, such as DNA or fingerprints,
can be problematic due to the forensic awareness of the offender and a lack of recall by the victim. In this study, we
consider a range of measures designed to improve the forensic detection of distraction burglary using trace DNA or
fingerprints. Our findings show that attendance at a distraction burglary by two crime scene investigators, one of whom
conducted a cognitive interview of the victim, produced a statistically significant increase in the number of offences
detected using trace DNA when the deception involved the offender purporting to be from a utility company. For this
deception, a cognitive intervie w of the victim did not produce increas es in the number of offences detected u sing
fingerprints. A cognitive interview of the victim for other deceptions did not produce an increase in trace DNA
detections although the frequency of both DNA and fingerprint recovery was reduced, thereby saving time and
resources. This success of trace DNA detection is due to the careful targeting of surfaces by the crime scene
investigator for DNA recovery, based on information received from the victim. Attendance by crime scene
investigators up to 2 h after an offence was reported had no statistically significant effect on the forensic detection of
the offence. We include a strategy for the forensic examination of distraction burglary.
Keywords
Forensic science, distraction burglary, cognitive interview, DNA, scene examination
Submitted 30 Jun 2016, accepted 09 Aug 2016
Introduction
Distraction burglary is a subcategory of domestic burglary
and has been defined as (Ruparel, 2004:2):
Any crime where a falsehood, trick or distraction is used on an
occupant of a dwelling to gain, or try to gain, access to the
premises to commit burglary. It includes cases where the
offender first enters the premises and subsequently uses dis-
traction burglary methods in order to remain on the premises
and/or gain access to other parts of the premises in order to
commit burglary.
Common distractions include the offender(s) purporting
to represent a utility company and needing to check the
supply/meter, a public servant (council worker, police offi-
cer, social worker), a domestic contractor (gardener, roofer,
drain/window cleaner) or some other bogus worker, such as
a delivery driver or charity collector. Other distractions
include a person in need of assistance, such as in an emer-
gency situation, requesting a drink or needing to use a toilet
(Lister et al., 2004). Lister et al. (2004) state that distraction
burglars are sophisticated in their offending, offend across a
wide geographic area, share information regarding potential
victims and may offend alone or in pairs.
The typical profile of a distraction burglary victim is
someone who is elderly (aged over 70 years), lives alone
and exhibits the following behavioural traits (Lister et al.,
2004):
Corresponding author:
John W Bond OBE, Department of Criminology, University of Leicester,
154 New Walk, Leicester LE1 7QA, UK.
Email: jwb13@le.ac.uk
International Journalof
Police Science & Management
2016, Vol. 18(4) 251–260
ªThe Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1461355716667526
psm.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial