Oscar pistorius: issues with forensic evidence PDF

Preview

Summary

issues with forensic evidence for group report...

Description

ISSUES OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE 1. Post mortem gastric emptying - not an exact science, should not be presented in court

2. Police misconduct of crime scene - no protective shoes worn inside the crime scene - furniture moved around e.g. fans and electric cord The Oscar Pistorius trial raised many issues concerning the evidence presented to court, especially regarding police misconduct and analysis of the evidence throughout the entire case. As Pistorius had carried the victim’s body downstairs, the site of crime in theory should’ve been kept intact however, the scene was contaminated by investigators. When alleged first on scene Hilton Botha arrived, he did not wear any protective footwear, admitting to contaminating the scene and potential evidence. However, he claimed he did not wear any as they were already being used which raises the concern over whether Botha really was first on scene and who was wearing the protective footwear (O’Faoilan, 2015). Evidence collected at the scene was also mishandled with one officer obtaining the suspected murder weapon without gloves (Fihlani, 2014) The scene was also repeatedly tampered with as furniture and objects were moved around throughout the investigation and as a result, crime scene photographs were alleged unreliable due to discrepancies between pictures and official police statements (Tobitt, 2014). Electric cords that would have affirmed Pistorius’ recount of the event went missing and photographs of scenes show varied placements of objects with a crime scene photographer even admitting that a bathroom mat “could have shifted whilst I was trampling on it” (Fihlani, 2014) Contamination of the crime scene can result in the damage and consequently loss of important evidence thus affecting what is presented during court. Contamination can also occur during the processing of evidence. The bathroom door containing important evidence such as fibres, footprint and bullet holes was kept in an office for approximately a week before being stored in an evidence locker, leaving it exposed to contamination. Due to the failure to safeguard this evidence, it was contaminated with a footprint consistent with police shoes which was later wiped off (Greene, 2014). The contamination of evidence impacts the outcome of a crime scene investigation especially due to the rising sensitivities of scientific analysis. If evidence is not properly secured and stored, the integrity and value of the evidence can decrease impacting the overall trial process. (Baldwin and May, 2017)

The collection of evidence was analysed by forensic analysts however, there were many areas missed or disregarded due to the assumption they were irrelevant or manipulated to match their defence. This contextual (conformational) bias impacts the conclusions deduced from evidence and undermines the reliability of forensics involved. Due to the complex relationship between forensic science and law, this may lead to evidence being undervalued and unjust convictions of the defendant (Venville, 2010). In Pistorius’ case, expert witnesses’ from both sides had conflicting analysis of the same evidence, from the order of events to which bullet holes corresponded with the victim’s wounds. While the expert’s may not have

been dishonest, the bias when choosing and analysing evidence to present to court interferes with what is meant to be impartial and objective. (Ambler, 2014) During the trial, The State claimed that Pistorius was on his stumps when bashing the door with a cricket bat however the door was never analysed with a mark on the below the handle left unaccounted for. During the cross examination, police forensic analyst Colonel Johannes Vermuelen admits he did not notice the mark. The origin of the mark would prove significant to the case as Pistorius would claim that the mark came from his prosthetics when kicking the door down (Cameron, 2014) which left behind sock fibres according to forensic expert Roger Dixon (Laing, 2014). However, the state suggests this may have been caused by Pistorius walking over the door. The State did not investigate whether Pistorius had been on his prosthetics as they did not believe it was an issue and omitted it from the case report (Cameron, 2014). They also incorporated the analysis of gastric emptying to validate their timeline despite it not being a proven science, to reinforce their version of events. (Davis, 2014) Gastric emptying is only significant to prove no further meal has been consumed as the rate of emptying is so variable, it cannot provide an indication of time that elapsed between the last meal and time of death (Horowitz and Pounder, 1985). The disregarding of potentially vital evidence as well incorporating invalid analysis impedes on the outcome of any trial and created a discord regarding the sequence of events affecting the nature of this trial and casted doubt on the forensic processes behind it. Credibility of forensic experts analysing the evidence is vital to a case as they play an important role as an educator for the attorneys and the judge which allows them to reach an appropriate conclusion (Robinson and Nouhan, 2019). The defence called upon Roger Dixon, a geologist by profession, to analyse the post mortem of the victim, ballistics and blood spatter to the court despite no previous experience in these fields (Smith, 2014). Dixon presented sound tests he created to demonstrate that the gun shots and striking of the bat were similar and could be mistaken for each other however, the sounds were recorded individually by a music producer with no expertise in recording gun shots and edited together by a sound engineer. The bat and gun used for the recording were not identical to the ones found on scene (Dixon 2014). Dixon analysed blood spatter patterns and post mortem autopsy using only photographs as a reference contradicting not only the state’s version of events but even Pistorius’. (Davis, 2014) The combination of the lack of scientific analysis in the evidence combined with a lack of expertise in the field results in the unreliability of the forensic evidence presented as well as any conclusions deduced from this information. References Ambler, M. 2014, Oscar Pistorius trial - creation.com, Creation.com. . Baldwin, H. and May, C. 2017, Crime Scene Contamination Issues, Crime Scene Investigator Network. . Cameron, J. 2014, Flaws in forensic evidence exposed: Oscar lawyer, BizNews.com. viewed 7 May 2019, .

Davis, R. 2014, Defending Oscar: Team Pistorius’ case, Daily Maverick. . Dixon, R. 2014, Prosecutor attacks credibility of Oscar Pistorius expert witness, latimes.com. . Fihlani, P. 2014, Pistorius crime scene 'disturbed', BBC News. viewed 7 May 2019, . Greene, R. 2014, In South Africa, gory details lend Oscar Pistorius trial 'CSI' flavor - CNN, CNN. . Horowitz, M. and Pounder, D. 1985, Gastric Emptying—Forensic Implications of Current Concepts, Medicine, Science and the Law, vol 25, no 3, pp.201-214,. Laing, A. 2014, Oscar Pistorius trial: what we have learnt from the last seven days, Telegraph.co.uk. . O'Faoilan, A. 2015, The Oscar Pistorius Case – A Practice in Omissions and Admissions ., News24. . Robinson, K. and Nouhan, P. 2019, Expert Witness, StatPearls, . Smith, D. 2014, Oscar Pistorius trial: expert witness for defence accused of irresponsibility, the Guardian. . Tobitt, C. 2014, Oscar Pistorius trial — a catalogue of police errors, The South African. . Venville, N. 2010, A Review of Contextual Bias in Forensic Science and its potential Legal Implications, Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency ....