Case Studies
One of our Experts was instructed to examine blood pattern evidence for a murder case in which a man died following an assault in a pub. Blood from the Deceased was found on the Defendant’s clothing. The Defendant admitted having a scuffle with the Deceased earlier in the evening but denied involvement in the murder. The Scientist for the Crown only compared the blood pattern evidence with the version of events given by the Police and found it gave strong support to that allegation. Our Expert considered both the alleged scenarios and found that the blood distribution could support either version of events. The Defendant was found Not Guilty of both Murder and Manslaughter.
The Defendant had been charged with a robbery on a bus, which had been recorded on CCTV. The Crown served a Police Officer’s statement in which he identified the offender in the CCTV recording as the Defendant. Our Expert examined the original footage, found it to be of good quality and conducted a ‘facial mapping’ comparison between the images of the Offender and photographs of the Defendant. Our Expert found that he could exclude the Defendant from being the Offender. His report was served on the Crown and the Case was Dropped.
The Defendant was accused of an assault outside of a nightclub, which was captured on CCTV. The Crown served the CCTV evidence along with a Police Officer’s statement in which he identified the Offender in the CCTV recording as the Defendant. Our Expert examined the original footage and found it to be of very poor quality. Although he could not exclude the Defendant from being the Offender he found any similarities to be extremely limited and very weak; the Offender could have been anyone of a broadly similar appearance. The evidence was presented to the Judge during a Voir Dire and as a result of our Expert’s testimony, the Judge excluded the Police Officer’s identification evidence. The trial commenced but the Case was Dismissed at ‘half time’.
• Crime Scene Examination / DNA Evidence
DNA obtained at a burglary scene from the outside of a window was found to match the Defendant. However, the Defendant had also been burgled and the Police Crime Scene Examiner attended the Defendant’s premises to conduct an examination prior to attending the other burglary scene later that same day. The question of contamination arose and our Crime Scene Examiner reviewed the evidence. Based on information and questions raised by our Expert, the Crown’s Examiner admitted to Defence Counsel that he may have used the same fingerprint brush at both crime scenes, and, because of research our Expert was aware of regarding the contamination of fingerprint brushes with DNA, the Crown’s DNA Scientist confirmed that DNA could have been transferred via the fingerprint brush from the Defendant’s premises to the other burglary scene. The Crown Offered No Evidence.
One of our Experts was instructed in an arson case in which the Defendant was accused of setting fire to a car. A bottle was recovered by the Police from the vehicle and was sent for DNA testing. DNA was found which matched the Defendant (with a ‘one in a billion’ statistic given). Our Expert examined the evidence and produced a report commenting on various aspects of the evidence, including it not being possible to determine when the DNA was deposited and that secondary transfer could not be ruled out. Our Expert’s report was served on the Crown who, as a result of the report, Discontinued Proceedings.
The Defendant had been charged with the armed robbery of a jewellers, in which latex gloves had been left behind at the scene by the Offenders. A finger mark belonging to the Defendant was said by the Police to have been found on the inside of one of the gloves. The Defendant had a legitimate reason for touching the outside of latex gloves but not for wearing them. Our Expert advised Counsel that there was no proof in the evidence served by the Crown that the mark was definitely found on the inside of the glove, particularly as latex gloves are often removed in a manner which causes them to be turned inside out. On cross examination the Police could not confirm if the mark was found on the inside or outside of the glove and the Defendant was found Not Guilty.
Having been charged with driving with excess alcohol, the Defendant was adamant he had not drunk sufficient alcohol to take him over the limit. We were therefore instructed to investigate the evidence to ascertain if it was indeed correct. Various information was requested by our Expert which revealed the fact that the Defendant had been permitted to use his asthma inhaler just prior to using the intoximeter. The risk this introduced to potentially giving a false intoximeter reading lead to the Defendant being found Not Guilty.
