Keith Borer Consultants
Address:
Locard House
Belmont Business Park
Durham
DH1 1TW
Belmont Business Park
Durham
DH1 1TW
Profile:
For over 30 years Keith Borer Consultants have been preparing expert forensic reports and providing expert testimony for criminal, civil, family and disciplinary hearings.
We operate to the international quality management standard ISO9001:2008. We are proud of our 'can do' reputation in providing high-quality reports to the timescales you need them. We are instructed throughout the UK and Ireland and can bring extensive case experience toyour case. We welcome telephone discussions at an early stage to see what can or cannot be done. Contact Keith Borer Consultants for the following main services: alcohol calculations, arson, ballistics, blood stain patterns, body fluids, cell site analysis, computer hard drives and other digital storage media, DNA profiling, domestic and industrial accidents, drugs and toxicology, engineering measurements, explosions, explosives, fibres, fingerprints, firearms, fires, footwear marks, tool marks, glass fragments, handwriting & documents, hairs, health and safety, mobile phones, personal injury, physical fit evidence, road traffic accidents and video imagery.
PR Messages:
Bebo screen shots – genuine or not? ... read
Social networking websites and email accounts can provide useful information in criminal cases which previously rested on one person’s word against another’s. Such information is increasingly being used by both prosecution and defence.
A recent case at Keith Borer Consultants using such information took an unusual twist when we were supplied with printouts of a Bebo profile and asked to investigate their authenticity. Bebo is a social networking site where users create a profile and can upload photographs, blogs and music, add friends and post messages.
The investigation consisted of two parts: firstly we examined different ways of printing web pages. For example, we looked at additional features which may appear in headers and footers when an unusal printing route has been chosen. Secondly, research was required to see how web pages could be tampered with prior to printing. Through experimentation, we identified subtle changes to the web page as a result of different alteration techniques.
During our examination we found several clues indicating that in this case the printouts were not quite what would be expected if a Bebo profile page had simply been printed without amendment. Had the computer also been available, other examination options such as looking at activity on that computer could have been used.
As tampering techniques and skills become more sophisticated, it may become harder for the casual observer to discern if a similar printout has been amended. If you are planning to use information from social networks you may also need to assure the Court such evidence is genuine.
Contact Steve Guest or Ross Donnelly on 0191 3324999 for more information and advice.
A recent case at Keith Borer Consultants using such information took an unusual twist when we were supplied with printouts of a Bebo profile and asked to investigate their authenticity. Bebo is a social networking site where users create a profile and can upload photographs, blogs and music, add friends and post messages.
The investigation consisted of two parts: firstly we examined different ways of printing web pages. For example, we looked at additional features which may appear in headers and footers when an unusal printing route has been chosen. Secondly, research was required to see how web pages could be tampered with prior to printing. Through experimentation, we identified subtle changes to the web page as a result of different alteration techniques.
During our examination we found several clues indicating that in this case the printouts were not quite what would be expected if a Bebo profile page had simply been printed without amendment. Had the computer also been available, other examination options such as looking at activity on that computer could have been used.
As tampering techniques and skills become more sophisticated, it may become harder for the casual observer to discern if a similar printout has been amended. If you are planning to use information from social networks you may also need to assure the Court such evidence is genuine.
Contact Steve Guest or Ross Donnelly on 0191 3324999 for more information and advice.
Training Seminars for Solicitors & Barristers ... read
Keith Borer Consultants are able to provide training seminars for solicitors and barristers throughout the UK and Ireland. Topics cover a wide range of forensic speicialties and include advances in procedures/technology, recent case law and previous case studies. The talks can be delivered at a time and venue to suit you. If you are interested, please contact Alison McBride on 0191 3324999 or alison.mcbride@keithborer.co.uk to disucss further.
Arson Cases: Is your client getting burnt? ... read
A teenager is charged with arson with intent to endanger life, but had they arrested the wrong person? You would think something like this would not happen often, yet in four years we have seen five arson cases where the evidence, on close analysis, actually pointed to somebody else.
Take our teenager: caught on CCTV using a pub toilet and then a ‘regular’ at the pub went in afterwards and discovered a fire. There was no question it was arson, but where was the statement from the man who found this fire, and why was he in this small toilet area for 19 seconds when, according to the Crown, there was a fire burning inside it? When a last minute effort was made to find this witness, it turned out he had never been back into the pub since the night of the fire.
Or the case of the husband whose wife accused him of starting a fire in the kitchen with their daughter upstairs. Why did his account of that night match the fire evidence but the statement of the wife did not? And why did she fail to show up at Court to give evidence?
Then there was the Iraqi who, although a victim of a hate crime, ended up being accused of setting fire to his flat simply because evidence of a break-in was overlooked. Careful fire scene examination revealed soot patterns which showed a ground floor window had been ajar at the time of the fire and fingerprint “burglar marks” on the window itself.
None of these cases made it to trial but are only a subset of many poor investigations we have seen including others where accidental causes had not been properly excluded or where issues of intent or recklessness had not been fairly addressed.
The reality is that fire investigation in the UK is suffering more and more from budgetary cuts and lack of critical thinking. Forensic scientists that used to be routinely involved in fire investigation are either no longer available or are not asked to attend, samples from fires are no longer sent for accelerant analysis (sometimes they are not even collected), documentation of scenes can lack important information and, overall, more and more cases are being brought without scientific investigation. If you have a dispute about the cause of a fire, don’t rely on the man paid to put fires out - instruct a forensic scientist experienced in fire investigation to assess the evidence.
If you have an arson case and would like an informal chat about it, please call Dave Schudel or Jenny Gray on 0191 332 4999.
Dr David Schudel, Keith Borer Consultants
Take our teenager: caught on CCTV using a pub toilet and then a ‘regular’ at the pub went in afterwards and discovered a fire. There was no question it was arson, but where was the statement from the man who found this fire, and why was he in this small toilet area for 19 seconds when, according to the Crown, there was a fire burning inside it? When a last minute effort was made to find this witness, it turned out he had never been back into the pub since the night of the fire.
Or the case of the husband whose wife accused him of starting a fire in the kitchen with their daughter upstairs. Why did his account of that night match the fire evidence but the statement of the wife did not? And why did she fail to show up at Court to give evidence?
Then there was the Iraqi who, although a victim of a hate crime, ended up being accused of setting fire to his flat simply because evidence of a break-in was overlooked. Careful fire scene examination revealed soot patterns which showed a ground floor window had been ajar at the time of the fire and fingerprint “burglar marks” on the window itself.
None of these cases made it to trial but are only a subset of many poor investigations we have seen including others where accidental causes had not been properly excluded or where issues of intent or recklessness had not been fairly addressed.
The reality is that fire investigation in the UK is suffering more and more from budgetary cuts and lack of critical thinking. Forensic scientists that used to be routinely involved in fire investigation are either no longer available or are not asked to attend, samples from fires are no longer sent for accelerant analysis (sometimes they are not even collected), documentation of scenes can lack important information and, overall, more and more cases are being brought without scientific investigation. If you have a dispute about the cause of a fire, don’t rely on the man paid to put fires out - instruct a forensic scientist experienced in fire investigation to assess the evidence.
If you have an arson case and would like an informal chat about it, please call Dave Schudel or Jenny Gray on 0191 332 4999.
Dr David Schudel, Keith Borer Consultants
Rise in Child Abuse Websites on the Internet? ... read
The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), a charitable organisation established to provide a point of contact in the UK to report illegal content online, recently released their 2010 Annual Report. Their main goal is to take down or block websites containing indecent images of children.
In 2010, over 16,000 websites were identified with potentially criminal content – an increase of almost 90% on the year before. Whilst this is a worrying statistic, the IWF also point out that the number of indecent images available is not increasing – they are just much more widely spread.
This poses a challenge in digital forensics. The wider proliferation of these images makes it a lot easier to accidently access this type of content. In fact, the IWF received over 48,000 reports in 2010, many likely to be from users who have accidently stumbled across these images.
The challenge for digital forensic investigators is not only identifying where an image came from, but also the surrounding activity of the user. What path did the user take to get to the website? Was it a link from a legitimate website, or did they deliberately search for this type of content? And was this activity consistent with the user’s usual browsing habits?
A full forensic examination of the computer may be able to answer these questions for you. Contact our digital department now if you would like to discuss these issues in your client’s case.
Ross Donnelly BSc(Hons), MCITP, MCTS, MBCS, MIET
Sources:
Summary on The Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/16/internet_watch_foundation_celebrates_15_year_anniversary/
The Report on IWF’s website:
http://www.iwf.org.uk/assets/media/annual-reports/Internet Watch Foundation Annual Report 2010 web.pdf
In 2010, over 16,000 websites were identified with potentially criminal content – an increase of almost 90% on the year before. Whilst this is a worrying statistic, the IWF also point out that the number of indecent images available is not increasing – they are just much more widely spread.
This poses a challenge in digital forensics. The wider proliferation of these images makes it a lot easier to accidently access this type of content. In fact, the IWF received over 48,000 reports in 2010, many likely to be from users who have accidently stumbled across these images.
The challenge for digital forensic investigators is not only identifying where an image came from, but also the surrounding activity of the user. What path did the user take to get to the website? Was it a link from a legitimate website, or did they deliberately search for this type of content? And was this activity consistent with the user’s usual browsing habits?
A full forensic examination of the computer may be able to answer these questions for you. Contact our digital department now if you would like to discuss these issues in your client’s case.
Ross Donnelly BSc(Hons), MCITP, MCTS, MBCS, MIET
Sources:
Summary on The Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/16/internet_watch_foundation_celebrates_15_year_anniversary/
The Report on IWF’s website:
http://www.iwf.org.uk/assets/media/annual-reports/Internet Watch Foundation Annual Report 2010 web.pdf
Read all about it! Fingerprint Evidence in the News ... read
Simon Bunter From Keith Borer Consultants recently reviewed an arson case where burning newspaper was allegedly pushed through the letterbox of a hotel staff accommodation block.
Police reported that “two sheets of partially burnt newspaper” were recovered and found to bear the defendant’s fingerprints. When Mr Bunter examined the exhibit in question, he found that the newspaper was not fire damaged in any way. The defendant’s fingerprints had been correctly identified on the unburned newspaper but their position was consistent with the defendant holding it to read it.
Further investigation revealed that the newspaper had been recovered from a communal area inside the staff accommodation block, to which the defendant had legitimate access. The date on the newspaper suggested that it could have been there for some weeks.
At court, the Crown’s experts re-examined the newspaper and agreed that it bore no signs of burning, resulting in the prosecution offering no evidence.
This case highlights the importance of examining the exhibits in fingerprint cases, rather than simply relying on photographs of marks or checking identifications.
Police reported that “two sheets of partially burnt newspaper” were recovered and found to bear the defendant’s fingerprints. When Mr Bunter examined the exhibit in question, he found that the newspaper was not fire damaged in any way. The defendant’s fingerprints had been correctly identified on the unburned newspaper but their position was consistent with the defendant holding it to read it.
Further investigation revealed that the newspaper had been recovered from a communal area inside the staff accommodation block, to which the defendant had legitimate access. The date on the newspaper suggested that it could have been there for some weeks.
At court, the Crown’s experts re-examined the newspaper and agreed that it bore no signs of burning, resulting in the prosecution offering no evidence.
This case highlights the importance of examining the exhibits in fingerprint cases, rather than simply relying on photographs of marks or checking identifications.
Firearms Casework: All Change! ... read
The current trend for providing Forensic Science expertise to the prosecution has swung away from a single all encompassing provider (The Forensic Science Service) to multiple small providers. This we have been told will provide a competitive market. What it also does is disrupts the consistency of methodology, opinion, legal interpretation and technical training which had been provided by the single entity provider.
In my own field of expertise, forensic ballistics, firearms and ammunition examination/classification and microscopy, the changes have been noticeable in the classification of firearms and ammunition within complex inter-related legislation.
The definition of a "firearm" is "a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged". Although there is no legal definition of lethality it has been accepted that a commercially made 'gun', in full working order and discharging a commercial bulleted cartridge, would constitute a firearm. Problems do arise with the use of home-made guns, converted imitation or blank firing guns, re-activated/de-activated guns, and low powered air weapons. Some of these may be used in conjunction with home-made ammunition, sometimes made up of a blank cartridge and a separate missile such as a ball bearing or large size lead shot. Because these home-made, converted or re-activated guns are not engineered to the fine tolerances of commercially made guns and likewise for ammunition then the efficiency with which they discharge missiles cannot be presumed to be at a lethal level.
To make a sound judgement on the lethal potential of a gun and ammunition combination then, wherever possible, the velocity of a discharged missile or the depth of penetration of the missile into a tissue simulant should be measured. A direct comparison should then be made with the known lethal properties of commercially made firearm/ammunition combinations measured in the same way.
A similar approach is used for air weapons where at least some assistance is given in legislation for the minimum levels of pellet kinetic energy at which an air pistol or air gun become Section 1 firearms, i.e. air pistols at 6ft lbs and air guns other than air pistols at 12ft lbs. However, practical experience has shown that air weapons are capable of causing lethal wounds at below 6ft lbs. The minimum values of kinetic energy known to have caused fatal wounds are 3.7ft lbs with a .177 inch air rifle and 4.1ft lbs with a .22 inch air rifle. There have been at least eighteen (18) deaths in the UK caused by air weapons where the values of kinetic energy fall between 3.7 and 11.9ft lbs. These, therefore, can also be classified as lethal barrelled weapons.
Many years of collecting data from casework submitted to the Forensic Science Service enabled me to create a large database of deaths, wounds, and damage caused by air weapons of different makes, types and calibre. This type of information was available to other firearms examiners within the Forensic Science Service but the ‘new providers’ may take years to build it up.
M D Fletcher 15th September 2011
In my own field of expertise, forensic ballistics, firearms and ammunition examination/classification and microscopy, the changes have been noticeable in the classification of firearms and ammunition within complex inter-related legislation.
The definition of a "firearm" is "a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged". Although there is no legal definition of lethality it has been accepted that a commercially made 'gun', in full working order and discharging a commercial bulleted cartridge, would constitute a firearm. Problems do arise with the use of home-made guns, converted imitation or blank firing guns, re-activated/de-activated guns, and low powered air weapons. Some of these may be used in conjunction with home-made ammunition, sometimes made up of a blank cartridge and a separate missile such as a ball bearing or large size lead shot. Because these home-made, converted or re-activated guns are not engineered to the fine tolerances of commercially made guns and likewise for ammunition then the efficiency with which they discharge missiles cannot be presumed to be at a lethal level.
To make a sound judgement on the lethal potential of a gun and ammunition combination then, wherever possible, the velocity of a discharged missile or the depth of penetration of the missile into a tissue simulant should be measured. A direct comparison should then be made with the known lethal properties of commercially made firearm/ammunition combinations measured in the same way.
A similar approach is used for air weapons where at least some assistance is given in legislation for the minimum levels of pellet kinetic energy at which an air pistol or air gun become Section 1 firearms, i.e. air pistols at 6ft lbs and air guns other than air pistols at 12ft lbs. However, practical experience has shown that air weapons are capable of causing lethal wounds at below 6ft lbs. The minimum values of kinetic energy known to have caused fatal wounds are 3.7ft lbs with a .177 inch air rifle and 4.1ft lbs with a .22 inch air rifle. There have been at least eighteen (18) deaths in the UK caused by air weapons where the values of kinetic energy fall between 3.7 and 11.9ft lbs. These, therefore, can also be classified as lethal barrelled weapons.
Many years of collecting data from casework submitted to the Forensic Science Service enabled me to create a large database of deaths, wounds, and damage caused by air weapons of different makes, types and calibre. This type of information was available to other firearms examiners within the Forensic Science Service but the ‘new providers’ may take years to build it up.
M D Fletcher 15th September 2011
"Aha! Oho! A trail in the snow! Whose is this trail and where does it go?" ... read
One of Dr Guy Cooper’s recent instructions could have been taken directly from Julia Donaldson’s popular children’s book “The Gruffalo’s Child”.
He reviewed a burglary case where footwear marks in snow had been reported tracking from a burgled premises back to the defendant’s girlfriend’s house. No shoes had been seized from the defendant but Dr Cooper was asked to confirm that all the marks had been made by the same type of shoe and to consider what size the shoe could have been.
Upon closer inspection of photographs taken at the scene, Dr Cooper found some footwear marks had been photographed well, including a scale ruler and showing them in context at the scene. This showed there was evidence of more than one outsole pattern at the scene, suggesting that more than one individual was involved. Others, reportedly showing the trail to the girlfriend’s house, had been photographed very badly, with no photographs recording the locations of the impressions, no scale ruler and showing poor definition in the marks. Some of the photographs which the officer claimed were part of the ‘trail’ were in fact photographs of the same impression. These had been taken around 12 hours after the incident in an unsecured area of the scene and part of the apparent ‘route’ had not been photographed at all.
There was no scientific evidence to link any of the marks to the defendant and the alleged trail between the scene and defendant’s girlfriend’s house was unreliable. Following receipt of Dr Cooper’s report, the prosecution discontinued the case.
He reviewed a burglary case where footwear marks in snow had been reported tracking from a burgled premises back to the defendant’s girlfriend’s house. No shoes had been seized from the defendant but Dr Cooper was asked to confirm that all the marks had been made by the same type of shoe and to consider what size the shoe could have been.
Upon closer inspection of photographs taken at the scene, Dr Cooper found some footwear marks had been photographed well, including a scale ruler and showing them in context at the scene. This showed there was evidence of more than one outsole pattern at the scene, suggesting that more than one individual was involved. Others, reportedly showing the trail to the girlfriend’s house, had been photographed very badly, with no photographs recording the locations of the impressions, no scale ruler and showing poor definition in the marks. Some of the photographs which the officer claimed were part of the ‘trail’ were in fact photographs of the same impression. These had been taken around 12 hours after the incident in an unsecured area of the scene and part of the apparent ‘route’ had not been photographed at all.
There was no scientific evidence to link any of the marks to the defendant and the alleged trail between the scene and defendant’s girlfriend’s house was unreliable. Following receipt of Dr Cooper’s report, the prosecution discontinued the case.
DNA Evidence - Successful Outcome in the Court of Appeal ... read
R vs E [2011] EWCA Crim 460 No: 201003792/B2
A report provided by one of our biologists, Hannah Goy, has recently been instrumental in quashing the conviction of a man charged with the rape of his daughter.
The family involved in the case lived in a very untidy house where clothes which had been left in a laundry pile for washing by one member of the family were sometimes picked up and used by other members of the family.
It had been reported by the Crown scientist that semen attributable to the father had been found in the crotch of his daughter’s shorts together with DNA that (of the family members) could only have originated from her. The Crown scientist’s evidence formed the mainstay of the prosecution case despite other witness evidence to the contrary.
In reviewing the case file, Mrs Goy noted that only one or two sperm cells had been found on fabric from the shorts. Given the grubby and dirty state of the garment it was her opinion that in no way was it possible to say that the DNA profile matching the father had come from sperm and furthermore the attribution of material to the daughter, suggesting she was the wearer of the shorts, was questionable. Consequently it was not possible to say whether any semen present was likely to have been deposited as a result of drainage post intercourse and the strength of evidence presented by the Crown at trial was significantly overstated.
Mrs Goy’s report was reviewed by another forensic scientist appointed by the respondent who agreed with her conclusions. As this completely undermined the value of the Crown’s scientific evidence at trial the conviction was quashed as the Court of Appeal considered it may very well have made a difference to the verdict which the jury reached.
The judge congratulated the instructing solicitors for their diligence and perseverance in bringing such a difficult case to appeal where others had rejected there being any potential grounds to do so.
The full judgement can be found at: http://www.chrissaltrese.co.uk/RvE-judgment.pdf
Helen Davey BSc, PhD, CBiol, MSB
A report provided by one of our biologists, Hannah Goy, has recently been instrumental in quashing the conviction of a man charged with the rape of his daughter.
The family involved in the case lived in a very untidy house where clothes which had been left in a laundry pile for washing by one member of the family were sometimes picked up and used by other members of the family.
It had been reported by the Crown scientist that semen attributable to the father had been found in the crotch of his daughter’s shorts together with DNA that (of the family members) could only have originated from her. The Crown scientist’s evidence formed the mainstay of the prosecution case despite other witness evidence to the contrary.
In reviewing the case file, Mrs Goy noted that only one or two sperm cells had been found on fabric from the shorts. Given the grubby and dirty state of the garment it was her opinion that in no way was it possible to say that the DNA profile matching the father had come from sperm and furthermore the attribution of material to the daughter, suggesting she was the wearer of the shorts, was questionable. Consequently it was not possible to say whether any semen present was likely to have been deposited as a result of drainage post intercourse and the strength of evidence presented by the Crown at trial was significantly overstated.
Mrs Goy’s report was reviewed by another forensic scientist appointed by the respondent who agreed with her conclusions. As this completely undermined the value of the Crown’s scientific evidence at trial the conviction was quashed as the Court of Appeal considered it may very well have made a difference to the verdict which the jury reached.
The judge congratulated the instructing solicitors for their diligence and perseverance in bringing such a difficult case to appeal where others had rejected there being any potential grounds to do so.
The full judgement can be found at: http://www.chrissaltrese.co.uk/RvE-judgment.pdf
Helen Davey BSc, PhD, CBiol, MSB
Drug Profiling – Common Source: what does it actually mean to your case? ... read
The prosecution often allege drugs have come from a common source, but what does this mean, how do they prove it and is it significant?
Drugs such as heroin and cocaine are produced from natural products and contain impurities in varying amounts specific to their manufacture. The ratio of these impurities to the drug (and/or its degradation product) will remain constant throughout the life of the drug, irrespective of its subsequent cutting. The use of cutting agents can discriminate later stages of the distribution chain. The chemical profiling of two drug samples in order to measure these ratios can be very useful, therefore, in determining whether they have a common source of manufacture or distribution.
The term chemical profiling, however, may be used to describe analysis carried out to varying levels of detail. In cases where a common source is alleged it is important to establish the accuracy and relevance of the chemical profiling results reported.
We have encountered several cases recently where the Crown have mis-represented the significance of the chemical profiling results and one instance where existing analysis which refuted the prosecution’s allegation had not been reported at all!
Case 1: Two wraps of heroin powder were recovered, one from the defendant and another from his home address and a charge of dealing alleged. The Crown scientist reported that although chemical profiling of the heroin powders showed different purities (42% and 54%) they shared similar chemical components and, therefore, both were from a common source. On examination we found differences in colour, purity and levels of cutting agent indicating that they were not from the same immediate street batch of heroin powder.
Case 2: Two quantities of cocaine powder were recovered, one from the defendant’s handbag and the other from her home address and a charge of dealing alleged. The defendant maintained that they were unrelated. The Crown analysed them and reported both items as pink powder containing cocaine to support their case. The court subsequently ordered that a more detailed comparison be undertaken but the prosecution scientist stated there was insufficient material to undertake detailed chemical profiling. On examination we found that the powders, whilst both pinkish, were different in colour and texture and, significantly, the original analysis conducted showed different cutting agents which had not been reported by the Crown! This confirmed that the cocaine powders were not directly related and indeed the lower purity powder could not have been produced from the higher purity powder.
In this case, detailed chemical profiling and the potential common source of the manufactured batch was irrelevant – if the known differences had been reported properly in the first place the issue of whether the powders were related could have been resolved much earlier.
Case 3: In a twist to the normal use of chemical profiling, in a recent heroin import/possession case the prosecution scientist reported that two samples had different chemical compositions and, therefore, were not linked. The defendant’s account was they were purchased from the same batch but stored under different conditions. Close analysis of the chemical composition showed that the impurities were in the same ratios and when the percentage composition of drug was added to that of its decomposition product in each of the samples then the samples did indeed match and the defendant’s account was substantiated.
In conclusion, detailed chemical profiling can be a useful tool in assessing similarities between illegal drugs but other information such as colour differences, purity and cutting agents also need to be considered in assessing whether or not two powders are directly related in the context of a case, or whether the common source alleged is actually several steps back in the supply chain.
Sarah Morley BSc. MSc.
Drugs such as heroin and cocaine are produced from natural products and contain impurities in varying amounts specific to their manufacture. The ratio of these impurities to the drug (and/or its degradation product) will remain constant throughout the life of the drug, irrespective of its subsequent cutting. The use of cutting agents can discriminate later stages of the distribution chain. The chemical profiling of two drug samples in order to measure these ratios can be very useful, therefore, in determining whether they have a common source of manufacture or distribution.
The term chemical profiling, however, may be used to describe analysis carried out to varying levels of detail. In cases where a common source is alleged it is important to establish the accuracy and relevance of the chemical profiling results reported.
We have encountered several cases recently where the Crown have mis-represented the significance of the chemical profiling results and one instance where existing analysis which refuted the prosecution’s allegation had not been reported at all!
Case 1: Two wraps of heroin powder were recovered, one from the defendant and another from his home address and a charge of dealing alleged. The Crown scientist reported that although chemical profiling of the heroin powders showed different purities (42% and 54%) they shared similar chemical components and, therefore, both were from a common source. On examination we found differences in colour, purity and levels of cutting agent indicating that they were not from the same immediate street batch of heroin powder.
Case 2: Two quantities of cocaine powder were recovered, one from the defendant’s handbag and the other from her home address and a charge of dealing alleged. The defendant maintained that they were unrelated. The Crown analysed them and reported both items as pink powder containing cocaine to support their case. The court subsequently ordered that a more detailed comparison be undertaken but the prosecution scientist stated there was insufficient material to undertake detailed chemical profiling. On examination we found that the powders, whilst both pinkish, were different in colour and texture and, significantly, the original analysis conducted showed different cutting agents which had not been reported by the Crown! This confirmed that the cocaine powders were not directly related and indeed the lower purity powder could not have been produced from the higher purity powder.
In this case, detailed chemical profiling and the potential common source of the manufactured batch was irrelevant – if the known differences had been reported properly in the first place the issue of whether the powders were related could have been resolved much earlier.
Case 3: In a twist to the normal use of chemical profiling, in a recent heroin import/possession case the prosecution scientist reported that two samples had different chemical compositions and, therefore, were not linked. The defendant’s account was they were purchased from the same batch but stored under different conditions. Close analysis of the chemical composition showed that the impurities were in the same ratios and when the percentage composition of drug was added to that of its decomposition product in each of the samples then the samples did indeed match and the defendant’s account was substantiated.
In conclusion, detailed chemical profiling can be a useful tool in assessing similarities between illegal drugs but other information such as colour differences, purity and cutting agents also need to be considered in assessing whether or not two powders are directly related in the context of a case, or whether the common source alleged is actually several steps back in the supply chain.
Sarah Morley BSc. MSc.
Computer Evidence: Not All is Lost ... read
In a recent case, the defendant was charged with handling stolen goods. It was alleged she had been using a laptop computer which was stolen during a burglary in February 2011. The laptop was identified by the victim of the burglary and returned, however it appeared that the laptop had been reformatted and a new version of Windows installed.
The defendant denied the offence and claimed that she and her family had been using the computer legitimately since late 2010. It was recovered for examination at the request of the defendant’s solicitors.
Steve Guest from Keith Borer Consultants examined the laptop and found evidence of mobile telephone online account usage and several Facebook emails consistent with the defendant’s account of events. Furthermore he found evidence of a previous owner, unconnected to the burgled house. The prosecution dropped the case.
The defendant denied the offence and claimed that she and her family had been using the computer legitimately since late 2010. It was recovered for examination at the request of the defendant’s solicitors.
Steve Guest from Keith Borer Consultants examined the laptop and found evidence of mobile telephone online account usage and several Facebook emails consistent with the defendant’s account of events. Furthermore he found evidence of a previous owner, unconnected to the burgled house. The prosecution dropped the case.
DNA: A Cautionary Tale ... read
Evidential evaluation of DNA profiling evidence received significant guidance from the Court of Appeal in R v Alan Grant [2008] EWCA Crim 1890.
Unlike other judgements guiding experts on how to interpret their findings, this covered the value of an uncorroborated DNA link in specific case circumstances; the DNA profiles not being in dispute. In essence it was accepted that the major DNA profile from a balaclava was sufficient to link the defendant to it, but not to the act of discarding it near the scene of a robbery. This highlights the distinction between a DNA profile match providing Police with sufficient evidence to justify a charge and the more rigorous test of being sure. In our experience this is a common dilema particularly in less high profile or less high profile cases such as burglary, where investigation appears to cease if a DNA profile from some item, believed associated with the offence, identifies a suspect. Clearly there must be some circumstances, e.g. a blood spot within a burgled house, where a DNA profile match provides compelling prosecution evidence due to lack of a credible alternative. There are also many that reach Court which fall within the category of R v Grant, where the significant DNA profile was from a mobile or portable object such as gloves, balaclava, clothing, weapon or vehicle; but in itself should not be interpreted as sufficient to link, to the necessary high standard of proof, that person to the offence.
Testing of the balaclava in R v Grant revealed the presence of a minor incomplete DNA profile from at least one other person. This should however, be irrelevant, as failure to detect any other DNA sources would not have determined whether there had been contact with other people or altered evaluation of the major DNA profile. Detection of other DNA source(s) on this balaclava would support the suggestion that someone else may have worn it but, because DNA transfer is uncertain, if the testing failed to detect other sources this would not have indicated that Mr Grant was the only wearer. Irrespective of the degree to which Police forensic budgets are under pressure, we encounter cases where uncorroborated DNA profile matches provide sufficient evidence to identify a suspect and justify a charge, but where those charges remain disputed there is no further forensic effort. The only apparent explanations seem to be lack of understanding by those responsible for setting the prosecution forensic strategy, unwillingness to seek expert advice or perhaps an over acceptance by the defence of the bald assertions made in prosecution forensic reports.
Keith Borer Consultants have prepared reports in many cases where this has been the main issue. Forensic findings of this type are individual to each case and consequently very similar DNA profiling results may be compelling in some case circumstances and evidentially worthless in the next. These cases show the importance of examining with care reports on DNA evidence and on keeping abreast of recent case law developments.
Dr Duncan Woods
Unlike other judgements guiding experts on how to interpret their findings, this covered the value of an uncorroborated DNA link in specific case circumstances; the DNA profiles not being in dispute. In essence it was accepted that the major DNA profile from a balaclava was sufficient to link the defendant to it, but not to the act of discarding it near the scene of a robbery. This highlights the distinction between a DNA profile match providing Police with sufficient evidence to justify a charge and the more rigorous test of being sure. In our experience this is a common dilema particularly in less high profile or less high profile cases such as burglary, where investigation appears to cease if a DNA profile from some item, believed associated with the offence, identifies a suspect. Clearly there must be some circumstances, e.g. a blood spot within a burgled house, where a DNA profile match provides compelling prosecution evidence due to lack of a credible alternative. There are also many that reach Court which fall within the category of R v Grant, where the significant DNA profile was from a mobile or portable object such as gloves, balaclava, clothing, weapon or vehicle; but in itself should not be interpreted as sufficient to link, to the necessary high standard of proof, that person to the offence.
Testing of the balaclava in R v Grant revealed the presence of a minor incomplete DNA profile from at least one other person. This should however, be irrelevant, as failure to detect any other DNA sources would not have determined whether there had been contact with other people or altered evaluation of the major DNA profile. Detection of other DNA source(s) on this balaclava would support the suggestion that someone else may have worn it but, because DNA transfer is uncertain, if the testing failed to detect other sources this would not have indicated that Mr Grant was the only wearer. Irrespective of the degree to which Police forensic budgets are under pressure, we encounter cases where uncorroborated DNA profile matches provide sufficient evidence to identify a suspect and justify a charge, but where those charges remain disputed there is no further forensic effort. The only apparent explanations seem to be lack of understanding by those responsible for setting the prosecution forensic strategy, unwillingness to seek expert advice or perhaps an over acceptance by the defence of the bald assertions made in prosecution forensic reports.
Keith Borer Consultants have prepared reports in many cases where this has been the main issue. Forensic findings of this type are individual to each case and consequently very similar DNA profiling results may be compelling in some case circumstances and evidentially worthless in the next. These cases show the importance of examining with care reports on DNA evidence and on keeping abreast of recent case law developments.
Dr Duncan Woods
Closure of the Forensic Science Service – will this affect your case? ... read
The imminent closure of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) has been widely publicised. Although last year’s closure of FSS laboratories was barely noticed by criminal defence solicitors, this will not be the case as the FSS closes its doors forever.
During the last twelve months, as their laboratories in Chorley, Chepstow and Birmingham closed, the FSS were able to accommodate defence examinations in their remaining laboratories. In October 2011, however, the FSS advised police forces across England & Wales that it was no longer providing laboratory facilities to host defence examinations, and that examinations would need to be accomodated in appropriate facilities provided by the police or the police force’s new forensic services supplier. As an alternative, we can complete examinations in our laboratories.
For those criminal defence solicitors with cases in which the prosecution forensic work was undertaken by the FSS, extra time will need to be factored in to arrange the defence examination. Our recent experience is that progressing work in FSS cases requires answers to the following questions before the examination can proceed:
•Where will the examination take place?
•Where is the FSS case file and how will this be made available?
•Can the exhibits be released to KBC?
•Who at the police force's new provider should we contact to make arrangements?
•Will there be costs incurred for using the new provider's facility and who will bear them?
•Do any retained materials such as microscope slides or fibre tapings need to be returned for the defence examination and how will they be made available?
•What travelling costs will be incurred (as these will not be known until we can identify where the examination is to take place)?
•To whom does CPS need to grant its permission for our examinations?
Should you choose to instruct us in such cases, we will advise you at the earliest opportunity of the steps to take to minimise disruption in the progress of your case and we will keep you up to date throughout. Although this issue will disappear as the new forensic providers take up the FSS work, as the FSS had an estimated 60% market share, we envisage that the handover period will persist throughout 2012.
During the last twelve months, as their laboratories in Chorley, Chepstow and Birmingham closed, the FSS were able to accommodate defence examinations in their remaining laboratories. In October 2011, however, the FSS advised police forces across England & Wales that it was no longer providing laboratory facilities to host defence examinations, and that examinations would need to be accomodated in appropriate facilities provided by the police or the police force’s new forensic services supplier. As an alternative, we can complete examinations in our laboratories.
For those criminal defence solicitors with cases in which the prosecution forensic work was undertaken by the FSS, extra time will need to be factored in to arrange the defence examination. Our recent experience is that progressing work in FSS cases requires answers to the following questions before the examination can proceed:
•Where will the examination take place?
•Where is the FSS case file and how will this be made available?
•Can the exhibits be released to KBC?
•Who at the police force's new provider should we contact to make arrangements?
•Will there be costs incurred for using the new provider's facility and who will bear them?
•Do any retained materials such as microscope slides or fibre tapings need to be returned for the defence examination and how will they be made available?
•What travelling costs will be incurred (as these will not be known until we can identify where the examination is to take place)?
•To whom does CPS need to grant its permission for our examinations?
Should you choose to instruct us in such cases, we will advise you at the earliest opportunity of the steps to take to minimise disruption in the progress of your case and we will keep you up to date throughout. Although this issue will disappear as the new forensic providers take up the FSS work, as the FSS had an estimated 60% market share, we envisage that the handover period will persist throughout 2012.
Fingerprint evidence – what can be relied on? ... read
Since the 16-point standard for identification was abolished, fingerprint experts have used a non-numeric scale. They use their experience, opinion and a certain number of matching characteristics to present fingerprint identification evidence in court. How many characteristics are deemed sufficient for an identification will depend on a number of factors including, for example, the clarity of the mark and the spatial relationship of other connected marks etc.
One of the fingerprint experts at Keith Borer Consultants, Catherine Tweedy, recently attended a fingerprint conference in the United States where ‘close non-matching’ fingerprints were discussed. Fingerprint examiners were shown a lift known as the Chesapeake mark. All agreed that given the information available they would call a match on the basis of it being a good quality mark with 15 matching characteristics seen. They were then astounded when shown adjacent areas of ridge detail containing major dissimilarities. It was only possible to determine that the Chesapeake mark originated from a different person when a sufficiently large area of ridge detail was viewed, and outlying dissimilar characteristics became apparent.
In much casework, a large area of lift may not be available. It is for this reason that the Chesapeake mark provides a significant challenge to the current accepted basis for evaluation of fingerprint evidence in the UK.
Catherine Tweedy gave a presentation on this topic at this year’s Shrewsbury Criminal Law Conference. If you would like to find out more about ‘close non-matching’ fingerprints, please contact Catherine at our Durham office.
One of the fingerprint experts at Keith Borer Consultants, Catherine Tweedy, recently attended a fingerprint conference in the United States where ‘close non-matching’ fingerprints were discussed. Fingerprint examiners were shown a lift known as the Chesapeake mark. All agreed that given the information available they would call a match on the basis of it being a good quality mark with 15 matching characteristics seen. They were then astounded when shown adjacent areas of ridge detail containing major dissimilarities. It was only possible to determine that the Chesapeake mark originated from a different person when a sufficiently large area of ridge detail was viewed, and outlying dissimilar characteristics became apparent.
In much casework, a large area of lift may not be available. It is for this reason that the Chesapeake mark provides a significant challenge to the current accepted basis for evaluation of fingerprint evidence in the UK.
Catherine Tweedy gave a presentation on this topic at this year’s Shrewsbury Criminal Law Conference. If you would like to find out more about ‘close non-matching’ fingerprints, please contact Catherine at our Durham office.
Cut Price Forensics - What Potential Cost to your Case? ... read
In mobile phone analysis, as in many other areas of forensic science, the pressures on police budgets mean that often the bare minimum of forensic work is being done by the prosecution but what is not being done could be critical to your defendant.
In a recent case, the defendant was charged with harassment. He was alleged to have sent numerous text messages to his former partner during a 6 week period. The police carried out an analysis of the defendant’s phone but found no SMS messages to or from the complainant for the period in question. However, neither deleted information nor the connection records retained by the network provider were looked at, which meant that the case was progressing on the basis of one person’s word against another.
When we examined the phone for deleted information, we found 177 text messages received from the complainant during the six week period versus 75 SMS messages sent to the complainant. The messages sent by the complainant included several requesting the defendant called her. Not surprisingly, when our report was served, the case was discontinued.
If you have a similar case where you think all the relevant information may not have been recorded or other matters involving mobile telephone evidence please call one of our mobile phone experts Thomas Marryat or John Corcoran through the Durham office. More information on mobile telephone examination services we offer can be found on our Services page.
In a recent case, the defendant was charged with harassment. He was alleged to have sent numerous text messages to his former partner during a 6 week period. The police carried out an analysis of the defendant’s phone but found no SMS messages to or from the complainant for the period in question. However, neither deleted information nor the connection records retained by the network provider were looked at, which meant that the case was progressing on the basis of one person’s word against another.
When we examined the phone for deleted information, we found 177 text messages received from the complainant during the six week period versus 75 SMS messages sent to the complainant. The messages sent by the complainant included several requesting the defendant called her. Not surprisingly, when our report was served, the case was discontinued.
If you have a similar case where you think all the relevant information may not have been recorded or other matters involving mobile telephone evidence please call one of our mobile phone experts Thomas Marryat or John Corcoran through the Durham office. More information on mobile telephone examination services we offer can be found on our Services page.