We have all seen movies and read novels where an innocent man/woman goes to prison due to the police not bothering, or unwilling or even deliberately not seeking all the evidence that would have found the accused innocent.

I was astounded when I researched this to find hundreds and hundreds of cases, even in the USA and the UK where this has happened.

I quote from an article:

It seems most unlikely that, with all the checks and balances of the criminal justice system, someone today could be convicted of a crime he or she did not commit. The unfortunate reality, however, is that it does happen.

Developments in DNA analysis have resulted in the discovery of 240 such cases in the United States, some more egregious than others. How is this possible?

The Innocence Project,1 dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing, has identified a number of contributing causes, including eyewitness misidentification, improper forensic science, false confessions, police/prosecutorial misconduct, lying informants, and bad lawyering (see figure 1).

However, there is an important causal factor missing in this list developed by the Innocence Project: faulty investigative thinking. During the investigation of a case, even the best and most ethical detectives can fall prey to several traps. Organizational awareness of these subtle hazards and appropriate investigative procedures and supervision can reduce the risk of detectives falling prey to these hazards.

While the imprisonment of an innocent person is a travesty of justice, a criminal investigative failure more commonly results in the offender escaping justice (a wrongful conviction also allows the real offender to go free). The damage resulting from criminal investigative failures, whether to victims, innocent people, or the public, is significant. Consider homicide alone—there have been approximately 16,000 homicides annually in the United States between 2000 and 2009, with a clearance rate of 63 percent. In other words, on average, every day, 16 murders occur that might never be solved and their perpetrators never arrested.

The key failings in investigative thinking can be grouped into three areas: cognitive biases, organizational traps, and probability errors. Like cascading failures in airplane crashes, an investigative failure often has more than one contributing factor.

Law enforcement agencies are conservative, often suffering from bureaucratic inertia—a lethargy or unwillingness to evolve or act. Change is disruptive, and requires effort, time, and money. This inertia can slow a police agency’s response to a new crime problem. Moreover, when a response finally does occur, it is often insufficient. Organizational inertia was a problem in the Green River Killer investigation in Washington State;4 by the time a functional task force was formed, the killer had stopped.

Organizational momentum—the inability to change direction in the midst of a major investigation—is the opposite problem. It is difficult for investigators to redirect their focus from an established theory of a crime, or a particular suspect, especially if the organization has to then publicly admit it was wrong.

Ego, both personal and organizational, can prevent investigators from adjusting to new information or seeking alternative avenues of exploration. Sometimes the most prestigious law enforcement agencies are the most reluctant to admit mistakes. But truth is more important than reputation. An investigator must have the flexibility to admit his or her original theory was incorrect and avoid falling into the ego trap. Stubbornness, which often accompanies ego, is just as problematic.

Fatigue, overwork, and stress—endemic in high-profile crime investigations—can create problems for investigative personnel. Tiredness dulls even the sharpest minds. Critical assessment abilities drop in overworked and fatigued individuals, who start to engage in uncritical “automatic believing.”

The justice system—required to make decisions based on often uncertain or incomplete information—revolves around probabilities. Important legal concepts such as “probable grounds,” “balance of probabilities,” and “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” are influenced by concepts of probability. Unfortunately, the human mind is not good at understanding probability, and, as a result, humans often make irrational decisions. Probability errors in criminal investigations can misdirect investigators, prosecutors, and juries.

There are three rules of investigative failure that detectives should keep in mind:

One mistake, one coincidence, and one piece of bad luck can produce an investigative failure.

Once one mistake has been made, the likelihood of further mistakes increases.

Usually the biggest problem is refusing to acknowledge the original mistake.

Police agencies should ensure that detectives and their managers are aware of these traps. Investigations should be led by the evidence, not by the suspects. Case conclusions should be deferred until sufficient information has been gathered, and tunnel vision should be avoided at all costs. Investigative managers must remain neutral and encourage open inquiries, discussion, and dissent. Assumptions, inference chains, and uncertainties need to be recognized and recorded. Outside help should be sought when necessary.

Being aware of these problems, however, is usually not enough. Police agencies need to establish organizational mechanisms to mitigate their risk.

The criminal investigation process plays an important and special role in countries governed by the rule of law. Its function is to seek the truth, without fear or favor. That task, integral to both public safety and justice concerns, must be conducted in an unbiased and professional manner. If it is not, the result is unsolved crimes, unapprehended offenders, and wrongful convictions. Understanding what can go wrong is the first step towards preventing a criminal investigative failure.

END

And where was this taken from? Some magazine that attacks the police wherever and whenever it can? No.

The article above ,and I have only published a small part of it, was written by By D. Kim Rossmo, University Endowed Chair in Criminology, and Director, Center for Geospatial Intelligence and Investigation, Department of Criminal Justice, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, and Detective Inspector (retired), Vancouver Police Department, British Columbia, Canada.

It appears under the heading of “Failures in Criminal Investigation” on the website: The Police Chief. You can read the whole article at: http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1922&issue_id=102009

Can it happen in the Cayman Islands? Oh yes, and it happened a number of times according to Cayman Grand Court Judge Charles Quin.

In a case Judge Quin presided over only recently and one of our Front Page stories in iNews Cayman today “Cayman Islands police failures over material evidence halts trial”, in throwing the case out he said:

“The RCIPS FCU [Financial Crime Unit] failed to seize significant and relevant material at the time of the Defendant’s arrest. I find that the FCU has failed to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry and therefore has failed to obtain and retain material which may well serve to undermine the Crown’s case and assist the defence.

“This failure has led to a serious prejudice which, in my view, renders it impossible for the Defendant to have a fair trial, particularly some five years after the time the offences are alleged to have been committed, and, three and a half years after his arrest. Consequently there has been a serious fault so as to render it unfair to try the Defendant for the offence on this Indictment.”

He also said it should have been obvious to the FCU that “material was missing and was vital in order to properly investigate the allegations made against the Defendant”.

Judge Quin commented that if the case against the Defendant had been held at its original Court date back in June 2012 he [the Defendant] “might well have been found guilty of theft of US$1,863.69 and US$4,506.86. This would have led to a very serious miscarriage of justice.”

The prosecution has to prove guilt and until that time the accused is innocent. The evidence gathered MUST be unbiased. All the evidence must be found and if it proves the accused is innocent it is a good mark – a tick- not a bad mark – a cross – against the police. It shows the general public the police are doing their job professionally and above all – JUST.