Legal Case Study: The Red Ford Focus Case
Case study
Case Overview
Three men were arrested following a public appeal where a red Ford Focus was stolen from Bournemouth town centre, and used in an armed robbery of a bookmaker in Winton. Two of the men deny any involvement in the crime and the third admits to being the getaway driver. During the robbery the masked man carrying the sawn off shotgun fired it into the ceiling demanding everyone to lie on the floor. He then assaulted the store manager using the shotgun and forced him to open the safe, then placed the money in a cloth bag. The men left the scene in the vehicle reported stolen an hour earlier. The stolen vehicle was recovered two hours later in a wasteland near Bournemouth international airport. Forensic evidence was lifted …show more content…
from the vehicle which proved or disproved the suspect’s involvement. The men had left two balaclava masks, two pairs of marigold gloves and a sawn off shotgun inside the vehicle. Further evidence would have been taken from the bookmaker, the suspects clothing and footwear after their arrest two days later.
Evidence collected from the stolen vehicle
Exterior of the vehicle
The gloves were left inside the vehicle; therefore it can be assumed there would have been fingerprints on the handle, because the suspects could not have been wearing gloves when they opened the car from the inside or shut from the outside. As the vehicle was found it may have been possible to find footwear impressions in the surrounding area.
Interior of the vehicle
There may have been multiple forms of evidence in the stolen vehicle, including; fibres, hair, fingerprints, soil, sweat, dandruff and footwear impressions. However, most of the evidence will have been contaminated with the owner’s and other users of the cars DNA, hair and fingerprints. Elimination samples were necessary so that the fingerprints, DNA and hair that do not match the elimination samples can be investigated in more detail (Fisher 2000 p.119).
It was possible to check the vehicle specifically for fibre; these could have been located on the seatbelts, the seats and on the floor of the vehicle (Stauffer and Bonfanti 2006 p.84). A cloth bag was used in the robbery but was not recovered, therefore they could look to compare fibres and determine if a cloth bag was in the vehicle at any point (Lee et al 2001 p.153). As well as fibres, hairs may have transferred onto the seats, headrests, seatbelts and flooring. If the sample has a root then it will be possible to determine a DNA profile. However in some cases the root is not present so other methods are needed when analysing hair (Fisher 2000 p.202).
DNA trace evidence could have been found on the steering wheel, windows, mirrors, car controls, door handles, seatbelts and buckles (Stauffer and Bonfanti 2006 p.81). The DNA recovered could also include; dry skin, dandruff, blood, saliva and sweat as likelihood is the suspects would have been sweating during the crime and therefore transfer may have occurred in the vehicle.
Gunshot residue (GSR) may have transferred onto the interior of the car; either from the suspects or the firearm. Therefore tests should be done for lead, barium and antimony all in single particle, specifically where the firearm was placed in the vehicle, this would suggest whether the firearm had recently been discharged at the incident or not (Hueske 2006 p.138).
Although the men wore gloves they may have removed them inside the vehicle, leaving fingerprints. Certain surfaces in the vehicle are textured making it difficult to recover fingerprints (Stauffer and Bonfanti 2006 p.75). Latent fingerprints could have been recovered from the door handles, mirrors, seat adjustment controls, thermostat/air conditioning and potentially radio dials. These fingerprints could have been enhanced using white magnetic powder, on surfaces that are textured and dark, or black magnetic powder on light surfaces. Fingerprints found on the windows can be recovered using aluminium powder (Bandey 2007 p.3). Fingerprints could have been chemically enhanced using superglue fuming, however this should be done after DNA evidence has been recovered (Stauffer and Bonfanti 2006 p.75).
It may be possible to find footwear impressions on the seats and the floor of the vehicle. The footwear impressions may be latent or visible depending on the weather. In the driver’s seat and on the pedals it may be easier to find footwear impressions due to long period of contact time during the drive. In addition to footwear impressions, soil evidence may be recoverable from the carpet and pedals. It may have cross transferred with the shoes of the suspects (Fisher 2000 p.187) (Stauffer and Bonfanti 2006 p.86). They could also have matched the tyre treads of the stolen vehicle with any treads outside the suspects home or places of work.
Depending on the way the car was broken into will determine whether glass fragments will be found in the car. With the development of technology vehicles have better locks and are more difficult to get into without using the correct method of entry. The suspects could have broken in in several ways; they may have used a tool to bend the door frame, manoeuvred the lock linkages or smashed one of the windows to gain access (Stauffer and Bonfanti 2006 p.64-65).
If they smashed a window the glass would have gone into the car. Due to the way glass in cars is manufactured the glass breaks into tiny fragments and therefore could have transferred to the suspects clothes, skin or hair. After being fragmented the fragments travel in different directions, not just into the car but also away from the car (Lee et al 2001 p.154) (Kubic and Petrace 2014 p.434) (Stauffer and Bonfanti 2006 p.63). If the suspects used a tool to gain access to the vehicle, tool marks may have been left and these marks could have been compared to marks found on any tools found at the suspect’s houses or places of work.
Objects found in the stolen vehicle
Balaclava masks
Due to the closeness of the balaclava to the face, there would be a transfer of evidence to the mask itself. In addition, the size of the balaclava may give an indication of the physical appearance of the suspect (Fisher 2000 p.201). Any hair found on the balaclava could have been from the head, the beard, eyebrows or eyelashes. All would contain mitochondrial DNA which could have been investigated and if found with a root will contain the full DNA coding of the person who wore the mask. Other forms of DNA that would have been collected from the balaclava consist of; saliva, sweat, mucus, dead skin and possibly blood. GSR particles may also be detectable on the balaclava (Fisher 2000 p.283).
Marigold gloves Marigold gloves can be tight on the skin for use of the fingers this also means that they cause the hands to sweat in a controlled and confined area; it is possible the person wearing the gloves may have injured themselves leaving blood on or inside the gloves. Gloves are potentially a great source of DNA evidence. Hair and fibres from the wearer could get caught in the gloves which could have been recovered. When the shotgun was fired into the ceiling, GSR would have landed on the gloves therefore may be recoverable (Fisher 2000 p.283). Nevertheless, the most useful piece of evidence will be the availability of fingerprints on the inside of the gloves which can be recovered using either a heptane based Ninhydrin solution and superglue fuming or powder suspensions (Ramotowski 2013 p.172)(Pressly 1999 p.257-260)(Rinehart 2000 p.443-446).
Latent fingerprints may be located on the exterior of the gloves where they were held in order to be pulled on, these can also be developed as Ninhydrin will react with the amino acids on the outside of the gloves in the fingerprint (Pepper 2010 p.61). Wear patterns on the gloves can give them unique characteristics (Pepper 2010 p.61).
Shotgun
It may be possible to identify the owner of the shotgun, by matching the serial number found on the firearm to a database. It could have been possible to determine whether the gun had recently been fired by checking it for GSR, if it comes back positive then the gun may have been the one used at the robbery (Fisher 2000 p.281). The gun could have been processed for DNA evidence as the user may have left some on it. A source of DNA will be the butt of the gun, as this will be contaminated with DNA from the store manager due to him being assaulted with the gun. They checked specifically for sweat and blood evidence on the firearm, Although the user wore gloves whilst holding the firearm, the user may not have used gloves whilst cleaning or loading the gun so latent fingerprints may be made visible on other metal surfaces of the gun if not available on the trigger (Fisher 2000 p.293).
Evidence collected from the bookmakers in Winton
Some evidence could have been collected from the exterior and interior of the bookmakers. This evidence includes; footwear imprints, glove prints, DNA, fibres, hairs and most importantly firearm analysis.
Exterior of the bookmakers
Depending on the surroundings and weather, it may be possible to find footwear impressions in and around the bookmakers. If it was a wet day there may be clear footwear impressions where as if it was quite a dry day then the impressions may be harder to find.
Interior of the bookmakers
Latent footwear impressions and visible impressions may also have been recoverable inside. The man who grabbed the money from the safe, jumped over the counter so may have left glove prints/marks on the counter, these were analysed and helped determine the identity of the suspect involved (Sawer 2008). In some cases suspects who wore gloves were unaware that certain gloves leave latent fingerprints behind which can be used for identification. This is dependent on the thickness and the ability of the ridge detail to transfer through the gloves (Ramotowski 2013 p.171).
When the suspect fired the shotgun into the ceiling, they left crucial pieces of evidence that linked both crime scenes. This is because the shots that were recovered from the crime scene could be matched to the sawn off shot gun. Normally this would not have been possible but because they had sawn off the end of the firearm, loose metal burrs indented the shots creating individualizing characteristics (Kubic and Petrace 2014 p.357).
Evidence collected from the clothing and footwear of suspects and the suspects themselves
The most crucial part of evidence looked for on the clothing, footwear and suspects was GSR. This determined which of the men had recently fired a gun or been close to a recently fired gun and therefore could have been considered to be one of the armed men at the bookmaker robbery. As only one of the men from the robbery was witnessed to have fired a gun, they would expect to find GSR on only one of the suspect’s clothing, footwear or person (Fisher 2000 p.283). They would expect there to be no evidence of GSR on the clothing, footwear or body of the suspected getaway driver, however transfer of evidence could have occurred, they can determine if it was transfer of evidence depending on the location of the traces.
Trace evidence may also have been available on the clothing, footwear and suspects themselves, so they could have checked for any fibres available on the items, that matched fibres found in the stolen vehicle such as the seats and/or the carpet on the floor of the vehicle (Fisher 2000 p.178). They also could have checked for the presence of cloth fibres that could place the suspects in possession of the cloth bag used to store the stolen money. With the footwear they could have searched for any traces of soil as cross transfer between the vehicle and the suspect’s footwear may have occurred (Fisher 2000 p.187).
Samples were taken from the suspects for comparison samples included hair strands, mouth swabs, blood, sweat and dandruff. These will eliminate them or prove their involvement. As well as samples each of the men will be tested for GSR. The examiner of the suspect should also search for glass that may have imbedded itself on the suspects and on their clothing and footwear.
Evidence that could prove or disprove the involvement of the suspected driver of the vehicle and the two other suspects
Fingerprints recovered on the exterior of the vehicle could be compared with the elimination prints and with the prints taken from the suspects. If the fingerprints match one or more of the suspects it places them near/next to the car. On the other hand if the fingerprints do not match the samples from the suspects, this may appear to suggest they were not involved however only proves they did not leave any fingerprints on the outside of the vehicle. Fingerprints discovered on the inside of the vehicle, at the bookmakers, on the firearm or gloves that did not match any of the elimination prints should also belong to one or more of the suspects. If they match, it places the suspects in the stolen vehicle and in the case of the firearm and marigold gloves the bookmaker robbery. However if they did not match this suggests the suspects were not involved. Any prints found on the steering wheel that match a set of prints taken from the suspects should match up only to the suspect that admitted to being the getaway driver, however if not then this could have suggested that suspect was lying about his involvement in the crime. Any DNA trace evidence found on the steering wheel that match the samples taken from the suspects should match up only to the suspected getaway driver, however if not then this could have suggested that suspect was lying about his involvement in the crime.
If fingerprints from the shotgun match one of the suspects then that suspect will have been the man that fired the shotgun into the ceiling and assaulted the manager, however if more suspects fingerprints match fingerprints found on the firearm then more investigating will be needed to determine each suspect’s involvement.
If any DNA traces are found on the shotgun, in the mask, on the gloves or in the vehicle these can be matched with samples taken from the suspects. If the samples match the suspects then they were present in the stolen vehicle, however if they do not match this could have meant that the suspects were not in the vehicle. Any DNA found on the firearm will determine which of the men fired the weapon and will place them at both scenes.
With the shotgun being recovered they could have determined the owner of the shotgun using the serial number, this could have matched to one of the suspects and place them at both crimes (Fisher 2000 p.281). If the serial number doesn’t match the suspects it could have proved them their innocence or just suggest they stole firearm.
If when the men were tested for GSR the result came back positive then it could have meant that they had recently fired a gun or they held a recently fired gun, if the man that admitted to being the getaway driver had tested positive for GSR then his involvement in the crime will need to be investigated further. If the men test negative then they were innocent.
Footwear and tyre impressions can be compared with impressions found at the suspect’s homes and places of work and compared with the impressions on the sole of the footwear collected from the suspects. If the impressions do not match then this could have meant they are innocent however if they do match then they were at least at the scene (Fisher 2000 p.187). Hairs, fibres and glass found can be compared, this will help determine the presence of suspects at the crime scenes, if the hair, fibres and glass match this means they were present but if the hair and fibres do not match this could have meant they were not involved, however they may still have been present and evidence was just lost.
All of the soil samples will be compared and if certain samples match it can place suspects at the crime scenes; if they do not match then this could excuse them. If tool marks are found at the crime scenes these should be compared to tools found at the suspect’s places of work and homes. If they match this places them at the crime scenes if they do not match then this suggests they are innocent.
Evidence no longer available
Due to the circumstances of the case there is a high chance that certain pieces of evidence were no longer recoverable.
This could have been due to the timeframes or weather.
Footwear impressions and evidence available on the exterior of the crime scenes are recoverable depending on the weather, so in some instances they will not be recoverable as heavy rainfall could destroy footwear impressions but a dry environment may not produce viable impressions (Langford et al 2010 p.171).
DNA evidence may no longer be recoverable as it may have degraded, however it should still be recoverable from the items found in the vehicle. The suspects may have washed their clothing and persons -reducing the possibility of finding GSR, fibres, hairs or glass particles. GSR lasts a varied amount of time on skin from three to twenty four hours (Jalanti et al 1999 p.48). The tests can come back negative because GSR had been rubbed away due to general movement (Borghi and Hartner 1996 p.52). Hairs and fibres can be lost fairly quickly under certain conditions, so may not be recoverable after two days (Fisher 2000 p.204). Hicks determined that glass fragments were still discoverable after eight hours however, most fragments were lost after thirty minutes (Hicks et al 1996 p.107), therefore perhaps unlikely to have been recovered after 2 days. Fibres can last up to a week depending on whether the items had been washed. Salter and Cook believe not all fibres are removed after washing, therefore leaving the possibility of recovering some (Salter and Cook 1996
p.221).
The serial number on the shotgun may not be recoverable as the suspects may have destroyed it however depending on the depth of the destruction techniques may be used to recover it (Horswell 2004 p.36).
Conclusion
To conclude there was a variety of different pieces of evidence that was available at the crime scenes. Due to the circumstances in the case some of the evidence may no longer have been recoverable but over all the evidence that was recovered could have been used to prove or disprove the suspect’s involvement.
Case Overview
Three men were arrested following a public appeal where a red Ford Focus was stolen from Bournemouth town centre, and used in an armed robbery of a bookmaker in Winton. Two of the men deny any involvement in the crime and the third admits to being the getaway driver. During the robbery the masked man carrying the sawn off shotgun fired it into the ceiling demanding everyone to lie on the floor. He then assaulted the store manager using the shotgun and forced him to open the safe, then placed the money in a cloth bag. The men left the scene in the vehicle reported stolen an hour earlier. The stolen vehicle was recovered two hours later in a wasteland near Bournemouth international airport. Forensic evidence was lifted …show more content…
from the vehicle which proved or disproved the suspect’s involvement. The men had left two balaclava masks, two pairs of marigold gloves and a sawn off shotgun inside the vehicle. Further evidence would have been taken from the bookmaker, the suspects clothing and footwear after their arrest two days later.
Evidence collected from the stolen vehicle
Exterior of the vehicle
The gloves were left inside the vehicle; therefore it can be assumed there would have been fingerprints on the handle, because the suspects could not have been wearing gloves when they opened the car from the inside or shut from the outside. As the vehicle was found it may have been possible to find footwear impressions in the surrounding area.
Interior of the vehicle
There may have been multiple forms of evidence in the stolen vehicle, including; fibres, hair, fingerprints, soil, sweat, dandruff and footwear impressions. However, most of the evidence will have been contaminated with the owner’s and other users of the cars DNA, hair and fingerprints. Elimination samples were necessary so that the fingerprints, DNA and hair that do not match the elimination samples can be investigated in more detail (Fisher 2000 p.119).
It was possible to check the vehicle specifically for fibre; these could have been located on the seatbelts, the seats and on the floor of the vehicle (Stauffer and Bonfanti 2006 p.84). A cloth bag was used in the robbery but was not recovered, therefore they could look to compare fibres and determine if a cloth bag was in the vehicle at any point (Lee et al 2001 p.153). As well as fibres, hairs may have transferred onto the seats, headrests, seatbelts and flooring. If the sample has a root then it will be possible to determine a DNA profile. However in some cases the root is not present so other methods are needed when analysing hair (Fisher 2000 p.202).
DNA trace evidence could have been found on the steering wheel, windows, mirrors, car controls, door handles, seatbelts and buckles (Stauffer and Bonfanti 2006 p.81). The DNA recovered could also include; dry skin, dandruff, blood, saliva and sweat as likelihood is the suspects would have been sweating during the crime and therefore transfer may have occurred in the vehicle.
Gunshot residue (GSR) may have transferred onto the interior of the car; either from the suspects or the firearm. Therefore tests should be done for lead, barium and antimony all in single particle, specifically where the firearm was placed in the vehicle, this would suggest whether the firearm had recently been discharged at the incident or not (Hueske 2006 p.138).
Although the men wore gloves they may have removed them inside the vehicle, leaving fingerprints. Certain surfaces in the vehicle are textured making it difficult to recover fingerprints (Stauffer and Bonfanti 2006 p.75). Latent fingerprints could have been recovered from the door handles, mirrors, seat adjustment controls, thermostat/air conditioning and potentially radio dials. These fingerprints could have been enhanced using white magnetic powder, on surfaces that are textured and dark, or black magnetic powder on light surfaces. Fingerprints found on the windows can be recovered using aluminium powder (Bandey 2007 p.3). Fingerprints could have been chemically enhanced using superglue fuming, however this should be done after DNA evidence has been recovered (Stauffer and Bonfanti 2006 p.75).
It may be possible to find footwear impressions on the seats and the floor of the vehicle. The footwear impressions may be latent or visible depending on the weather. In the driver’s seat and on the pedals it may be easier to find footwear impressions due to long period of contact time during the drive. In addition to footwear impressions, soil evidence may be recoverable from the carpet and pedals. It may have cross transferred with the shoes of the suspects (Fisher 2000 p.187) (Stauffer and Bonfanti 2006 p.86). They could also have matched the tyre treads of the stolen vehicle with any treads outside the suspects home or places of work.
Depending on the way the car was broken into will determine whether glass fragments will be found in the car. With the development of technology vehicles have better locks and are more difficult to get into without using the correct method of entry. The suspects could have broken in in several ways; they may have used a tool to bend the door frame, manoeuvred the lock linkages or smashed one of the windows to gain access (Stauffer and Bonfanti 2006 p.64-65).
If they smashed a window the glass would have gone into the car. Due to the way glass in cars is manufactured the glass breaks into tiny fragments and therefore could have transferred to the suspects clothes, skin or hair. After being fragmented the fragments travel in different directions, not just into the car but also away from the car (Lee et al 2001 p.154) (Kubic and Petrace 2014 p.434) (Stauffer and Bonfanti 2006 p.63). If the suspects used a tool to gain access to the vehicle, tool marks may have been left and these marks could have been compared to marks found on any tools found at the suspect’s houses or places of work.
Objects found in the stolen vehicle
Balaclava masks
Due to the closeness of the balaclava to the face, there would be a transfer of evidence to the mask itself. In addition, the size of the balaclava may give an indication of the physical appearance of the suspect (Fisher 2000 p.201). Any hair found on the balaclava could have been from the head, the beard, eyebrows or eyelashes. All would contain mitochondrial DNA which could have been investigated and if found with a root will contain the full DNA coding of the person who wore the mask. Other forms of DNA that would have been collected from the balaclava consist of; saliva, sweat, mucus, dead skin and possibly blood. GSR particles may also be detectable on the balaclava (Fisher 2000 p.283).
Marigold gloves Marigold gloves can be tight on the skin for use of the fingers this also means that they cause the hands to sweat in a controlled and confined area; it is possible the person wearing the gloves may have injured themselves leaving blood on or inside the gloves. Gloves are potentially a great source of DNA evidence. Hair and fibres from the wearer could get caught in the gloves which could have been recovered. When the shotgun was fired into the ceiling, GSR would have landed on the gloves therefore may be recoverable (Fisher 2000 p.283). Nevertheless, the most useful piece of evidence will be the availability of fingerprints on the inside of the gloves which can be recovered using either a heptane based Ninhydrin solution and superglue fuming or powder suspensions (Ramotowski 2013 p.172)(Pressly 1999 p.257-260)(Rinehart 2000 p.443-446).
Latent fingerprints may be located on the exterior of the gloves where they were held in order to be pulled on, these can also be developed as Ninhydrin will react with the amino acids on the outside of the gloves in the fingerprint (Pepper 2010 p.61). Wear patterns on the gloves can give them unique characteristics (Pepper 2010 p.61).
Shotgun
It may be possible to identify the owner of the shotgun, by matching the serial number found on the firearm to a database. It could have been possible to determine whether the gun had recently been fired by checking it for GSR, if it comes back positive then the gun may have been the one used at the robbery (Fisher 2000 p.281). The gun could have been processed for DNA evidence as the user may have left some on it. A source of DNA will be the butt of the gun, as this will be contaminated with DNA from the store manager due to him being assaulted with the gun. They checked specifically for sweat and blood evidence on the firearm, Although the user wore gloves whilst holding the firearm, the user may not have used gloves whilst cleaning or loading the gun so latent fingerprints may be made visible on other metal surfaces of the gun if not available on the trigger (Fisher 2000 p.293).
Evidence collected from the bookmakers in Winton
Some evidence could have been collected from the exterior and interior of the bookmakers. This evidence includes; footwear imprints, glove prints, DNA, fibres, hairs and most importantly firearm analysis.
Exterior of the bookmakers
Depending on the surroundings and weather, it may be possible to find footwear impressions in and around the bookmakers. If it was a wet day there may be clear footwear impressions where as if it was quite a dry day then the impressions may be harder to find.
Interior of the bookmakers
Latent footwear impressions and visible impressions may also have been recoverable inside. The man who grabbed the money from the safe, jumped over the counter so may have left glove prints/marks on the counter, these were analysed and helped determine the identity of the suspect involved (Sawer 2008). In some cases suspects who wore gloves were unaware that certain gloves leave latent fingerprints behind which can be used for identification. This is dependent on the thickness and the ability of the ridge detail to transfer through the gloves (Ramotowski 2013 p.171).
When the suspect fired the shotgun into the ceiling, they left crucial pieces of evidence that linked both crime scenes. This is because the shots that were recovered from the crime scene could be matched to the sawn off shot gun. Normally this would not have been possible but because they had sawn off the end of the firearm, loose metal burrs indented the shots creating individualizing characteristics (Kubic and Petrace 2014 p.357).
Evidence collected from the clothing and footwear of suspects and the suspects themselves
The most crucial part of evidence looked for on the clothing, footwear and suspects was GSR. This determined which of the men had recently fired a gun or been close to a recently fired gun and therefore could have been considered to be one of the armed men at the bookmaker robbery. As only one of the men from the robbery was witnessed to have fired a gun, they would expect to find GSR on only one of the suspect’s clothing, footwear or person (Fisher 2000 p.283). They would expect there to be no evidence of GSR on the clothing, footwear or body of the suspected getaway driver, however transfer of evidence could have occurred, they can determine if it was transfer of evidence depending on the location of the traces.
Trace evidence may also have been available on the clothing, footwear and suspects themselves, so they could have checked for any fibres available on the items, that matched fibres found in the stolen vehicle such as the seats and/or the carpet on the floor of the vehicle (Fisher 2000 p.178). They also could have checked for the presence of cloth fibres that could place the suspects in possession of the cloth bag used to store the stolen money. With the footwear they could have searched for any traces of soil as cross transfer between the vehicle and the suspect’s footwear may have occurred (Fisher 2000 p.187).
Samples were taken from the suspects for comparison samples included hair strands, mouth swabs, blood, sweat and dandruff. These will eliminate them or prove their involvement. As well as samples each of the men will be tested for GSR. The examiner of the suspect should also search for glass that may have imbedded itself on the suspects and on their clothing and footwear.
Evidence that could prove or disprove the involvement of the suspected driver of the vehicle and the two other suspects
Fingerprints recovered on the exterior of the vehicle could be compared with the elimination prints and with the prints taken from the suspects. If the fingerprints match one or more of the suspects it places them near/next to the car. On the other hand if the fingerprints do not match the samples from the suspects, this may appear to suggest they were not involved however only proves they did not leave any fingerprints on the outside of the vehicle. Fingerprints discovered on the inside of the vehicle, at the bookmakers, on the firearm or gloves that did not match any of the elimination prints should also belong to one or more of the suspects. If they match, it places the suspects in the stolen vehicle and in the case of the firearm and marigold gloves the bookmaker robbery. However if they did not match this suggests the suspects were not involved. Any prints found on the steering wheel that match a set of prints taken from the suspects should match up only to the suspect that admitted to being the getaway driver, however if not then this could have suggested that suspect was lying about his involvement in the crime. Any DNA trace evidence found on the steering wheel that match the samples taken from the suspects should match up only to the suspected getaway driver, however if not then this could have suggested that suspect was lying about his involvement in the crime.
If fingerprints from the shotgun match one of the suspects then that suspect will have been the man that fired the shotgun into the ceiling and assaulted the manager, however if more suspects fingerprints match fingerprints found on the firearm then more investigating will be needed to determine each suspect’s involvement.
If any DNA traces are found on the shotgun, in the mask, on the gloves or in the vehicle these can be matched with samples taken from the suspects. If the samples match the suspects then they were present in the stolen vehicle, however if they do not match this could have meant that the suspects were not in the vehicle. Any DNA found on the firearm will determine which of the men fired the weapon and will place them at both scenes.
With the shotgun being recovered they could have determined the owner of the shotgun using the serial number, this could have matched to one of the suspects and place them at both crimes (Fisher 2000 p.281). If the serial number doesn’t match the suspects it could have proved them their innocence or just suggest they stole firearm.
If when the men were tested for GSR the result came back positive then it could have meant that they had recently fired a gun or they held a recently fired gun, if the man that admitted to being the getaway driver had tested positive for GSR then his involvement in the crime will need to be investigated further. If the men test negative then they were innocent.
Footwear and tyre impressions can be compared with impressions found at the suspect’s homes and places of work and compared with the impressions on the sole of the footwear collected from the suspects. If the impressions do not match then this could have meant they are innocent however if they do match then they were at least at the scene (Fisher 2000 p.187). Hairs, fibres and glass found can be compared, this will help determine the presence of suspects at the crime scenes, if the hair, fibres and glass match this means they were present but if the hair and fibres do not match this could have meant they were not involved, however they may still have been present and evidence was just lost.
All of the soil samples will be compared and if certain samples match it can place suspects at the crime scenes; if they do not match then this could excuse them. If tool marks are found at the crime scenes these should be compared to tools found at the suspect’s places of work and homes. If they match this places them at the crime scenes if they do not match then this suggests they are innocent.
Evidence no longer available
Due to the circumstances of the case there is a high chance that certain pieces of evidence were no longer recoverable.
This could have been due to the timeframes or weather.
Footwear impressions and evidence available on the exterior of the crime scenes are recoverable depending on the weather, so in some instances they will not be recoverable as heavy rainfall could destroy footwear impressions but a dry environment may not produce viable impressions (Langford et al 2010 p.171).
DNA evidence may no longer be recoverable as it may have degraded, however it should still be recoverable from the items found in the vehicle. The suspects may have washed their clothing and persons -reducing the possibility of finding GSR, fibres, hairs or glass particles. GSR lasts a varied amount of time on skin from three to twenty four hours (Jalanti et al 1999 p.48). The tests can come back negative because GSR had been rubbed away due to general movement (Borghi and Hartner 1996 p.52). Hairs and fibres can be lost fairly quickly under certain conditions, so may not be recoverable after two days (Fisher 2000 p.204). Hicks determined that glass fragments were still discoverable after eight hours however, most fragments were lost after thirty minutes (Hicks et al 1996 p.107), therefore perhaps unlikely to have been recovered after 2 days. Fibres can last up to a week depending on whether the items had been washed. Salter and Cook believe not all fibres are removed after washing, therefore leaving the possibility of recovering some (Salter and Cook 1996
p.221).
The serial number on the shotgun may not be recoverable as the suspects may have destroyed it however depending on the depth of the destruction techniques may be used to recover it (Horswell 2004 p.36).
Conclusion
To conclude there was a variety of different pieces of evidence that was available at the crime scenes. Due to the circumstances in the case some of the evidence may no longer have been recoverable but over all the evidence that was recovered could have been used to prove or disprove the suspect’s involvement.