Crafting Credible Homicide Narratives: Forensic Technoscience in Contemporary Criminal Investigations

ABSTRACT

Drawing upon qualitative data gathered during a four-year ethnographic study of homicide investigation in Britain, this paper explores how detectives, scientists, and other experts use findings from forensic sciences and technologies (FSTs) when constructing and modifying pre-trial homicide narratives. We consider how these narratives unfold from the earliest moments of the investigation and are told and re-told, as they are assembled into one coherent narrative fit for elocution in criminal court. We explore the embedding of findings from FSTs into narrative; the attention given to narrating character, motive, and intent; the use of narrative shifts to accommodate unwelcome findings from FSTs; attempts to deal with ambiguity during narrative creation; and, crucially, the reciprocal relationship between narrative and evidence. We suggest that narratives, such as those that we examine, are not mere chronologies, but the artful products of coordinated professional practice. Our research suggests that illuminating the origins and unfolding of such narratives during criminal investigation is as important as recording their final polished deployment within the theater of the courtroom.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and helpful comments. The paper is based upon research that was funded by a Leverhulme Trust Grant (reference number: RPG-2014-143). The authors wish to thank the Trust for the opportunity to undertake this research. The authors extend their gratitude to all of the detectives; police staff; forensic scientists; crime scene managers and coordinators; forensic accounts, submissions, and budget managers; prosecutors; judges; and other specialists within and beyond the criminal justice system who kindly gave up their time to take part in the research.

Notes

¹ We use the terms narrative and story interchangeably, as others have done, but acknowledge that for many analysts, the two are qualitatively different. Whereas some analysts view story as episode-oriented, others deem story to be that which actually happened (see Presser 2008).

² We use the term prosecutor to overcome differences in terminology between England and Wales, and Scotland. It refers to those who have responsibility for prosecuting crimes, including beginning legal proceedings and conducting the case against a defendant at court.

³ Whilst we acknowledge how these considerations inform the pre-trial narrative, space does not permit a detailed consideration of how detectives, scientists, and prosecutors preempt defense narratives.

⁴ See Polkinghorne (1988) for an account of some of the key early moments in the narrative turn. See Hyvärinen (2010) for a more contemporary, revisionist view.

⁵ The term public in this context refers to forensic science provision that is funded by the police service or the police authority.

⁶ Live homicide investigations refers to those that commenced during our fieldwork, as opposed to those that were already solved or “closed”.

⁷ HOLMES (Home Office Large Major Enquiry System) is a computerized information management system used for the investigation of major crimes. HOLMES2 is the second version of this system.

⁸ In some cases we were already undertaking data gathering at the relevant police service and accompanied detectives during their first visit to the crime scene. On other occasions, we received a telephone call at home and had to travel some distance by car, train, or plane, to the police service. We usually missed the first day of the investigation in these instances.

⁹ In Britain, review officers generally review undetected homicides, “cold” cases, domestic homicides, stranger rapes, and long term missing persons. They help to identify good practice and any investigative opportunities that have been overlooked, outlining recommendations for further work.

¹⁰ As outlined in the method section earlier, all data have been disguised or anonymized. Homicide cases have been given alphanumeric codes based on the research site and case number.

¹¹ Informally, several detectives told us that this case would likely have resulted in a miscarriage of justice in previous decades with the absence of the kind of science and technology to eliminate Simon. They explained that a strong circumstantial case would have been assembled against Simon as it seemed so obvious that he was the killer.

¹² See also Wolfgang (1958) on victim-precipitated homicide and Christie (1986) for a broader discussion of “ideal” and “non-ideal” victims.

¹³ Although there is a subtle difference between motive and intent, detectives and others often use the terms interchangeably. Jefferson (2015:80) refers to a distinction made by Lord Goff in the Privy Council Case Wai Yu-Tsang v R [1992] 1 AC 269, between “underlying purpose” (motive) and “immediate purpose” (intention).

¹⁴ In England and Wales, a “whole life order” can be given to an offender (who was 21 or over at the time of the offense) where the court takes the view that the murder is so grave that they should spend the rest of their life in prison. Where this is not warranted, but the seriousness of the offense is particularly grave, the appropriate starting point is 30 years, for example, a murder that is committed for gain or involving sexual or sadistic conduct (CPS n.d.).:

¹⁵ Previously referred to as joint enterprise, the CPS has published revised guidance on “Secondary Liability” which advises that if a secondary party (or parties) assists or encourages the principal party, they can be prosecuted and punished as if they were the principal offender (CPS 2018).

¹⁶ Space does not permit us to explore, in this paper, the important ways in which actors with different epistemic cultures, expertise, experience, and knowledge share and try to assimilate knowledge (see Nic Daied 2007; Perkins 1999).

¹⁷ See Brookman (2015b) for a discussion of the shifting narratives of violent offenders.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Leverhulme Trust [RPG-2014-143].

Notes on contributors

Fiona Brookman

Fiona Brookman is Professor of Criminology at the Centre for Criminology, University of South Wales, UK.  She conducts research mainly in the areas of policing, violence, and homicide using qualitative research methods including ethnography and a narrative approach.  She is also interested in visual criminology.

Helen Jones

Helen Jones is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Criminology, University of South Wales, UK and has previously worked in a number of roles for the police.  Her research interests include homicide, major crime investigation, and policing, with a focus on qualitative research.

Robin Williams

Robin Williams is Professor Emeritus of Sociology in the School of Applied Social Sciences at Durham University, UK and Emeritus Professor of Forensic Science Studies in the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences at Northumbria University, UK.  His studies of the police uses of forensic science have been informed by his disciplinary background in sociology and an interest in the influence of the life sciences and biotechnology in support of social control.

Jim Fraser

Jim Fraser is Research Professor in Forensic Science at the University of Strathclyde, UK and a member of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.  He has 40 years’ experience in criminal justice systems in the UK as an expert witness, case reviewer, senior police manager, policy adviser, and researcher.