Search the Community

UCL project exploring evidence recreation working on veracity of 3D modelling. Dr Morgan is enthusiastic about the changes to evidence preservation the PhD work may be able to facilitate. Exact 3D printed replicas of evidence artefacts may hold the key to the way crimes are investigated and prosecuted in the near future. A project at University College London, conducted by PhD student Rachel Carew, is exploring the possibilities around recreating exact copies of pieces of evidence to prevent decay over time. This could help detectives working on cold cases in which the original piece of evidence has deteriorated. Dr Ruth Morgan, director of the centre for forensic sciences at University College London who is overseeing the project, says there may be a number of advantages in preserving evidence in this way. She said: “One of the benefits is being able to preserve an exhibit in its original state meaning we can look at it in ten or 20 years time and evaluate it with new technologies in a way that may not previously been possible. “We are trying to work out the best ways of creating really accurate 3D models which can then be used… we have a lot of people working on this and the work that’s going is aimed at getting the accuracy part of the process spot on. “Cold cases is an area with real potential benefits because often you are going back to exhibits collected many, many years ago. “It can be difficult to evaluate them in the way you would have at the time as there are a lot of factors that can impact features of evidence.” The technique may also enable evidence to be used in a different way in courtrooms, potentially bringing juries closer to pieces of evidence which would previously have remained untouched. However, Dr Morgan warned of the possible ethical and practical limitations, adding: “It is interesting how we will be able to explain to a jury what has been done with the models and there are interesting considerations which need to be taken into account. “For example, how do we preserve exhibits that may be from an individual? Say you were recreating somebody’s skull, you need to have a robust system in place to preserve integrity and the rights of the individual and it needs to be done appropriately.” In terms of how far away this technology is from being deployed in the field, Dr Morgan says the technology already exists but the study is about demonstrating its worth and veracity in practical use. She said: “The technology is there and it’s a case of ‘can we demonstrate the value’. “The quicker and more accurately it be done the better, I think we are talking about a year or two rather than ten or 20 years (for widespread use). “It’s a cool area for this PhD, which has literally just started, but there is a lot of good potential.” Dr Morgan has previously warned about the “knowledge gaps” around what forensic evidence means or is able to tell us and the work she is overseeing around 3D modelling may help create a wider understanding in this regard. View on Police Oracle

Has anyone experienced being called to court for a job that they were involved with as special (or regular) but you no longer hold the Office of Constable? If so, how does it differ? Are you just treated as a civilian witness or are you still identified as a police officer - such as when saying rank/collar number/station at the start of giving evidence would you say this as it was at the time of the incident? I ask because, although I am still a Special Constable at the minute, I will start as a regular in April and I have been warned to attend court four days later!! So I will have resigned as a special but not yet been sworn in as a regular (that comes during the second week of training I have been told) That leads me onto my second question... despite having all of the uniform etc. would I just wear shirt/tie to court or could I still wear the uniform? I'm so confused what I'm going to do I imagine that it happens a fair few times, either with retired regulars or specials that have resigned but I think my situation will be quite unique/unlucky!

Hello chaps and chapettes, A few questions for the greybeards of the forum. Has anyone had any experience in using bad character evidence as part of an interview or a casefile? How did you do it? How did you find it went? Was it any help in interview/court? I've done some reading about it over the years, and I've had quite a few bodies where it seems like it would be a useful addition, however I am somewhat uncertain as to it's practical application? Do you put the fact they have relevant bad character to them flatly in interview? Wouldn't they just say they "Oh well, I didn't do it this time yeah?" And I assume you mention such evidence has been alluded too on an MG3? If anyone could share some wisdom it would be very much appreciated! Thanks!

Hi folks, A quick question and scenario: A bloke is getting nicked for an offence, baying mob of youths filming the whole thing on their phones as usual, you think the original offence may have been caught on their phones. All this happens in the street, not in a premises. What power exists to seize their phones as evidence against their will? Can you nick them for obstruction if they fail to comply? S19 PACE doesn't apply, a quick look on the net suggests a common law power applies but I can't see any specific referencing to the wording of this. Can anyone shed some light on this for me? Thanks.

I'm listening to a podcast looking at a murder investigation form 1999 and one point raised my eyebrows a bit. The host is talking to a US murder detective who talks about "bad evidence" being any evidence that undermines the prosecution case. It's not something I know much about, but how does this work in the UK? I know that not all evidence is disclosable, but surely most evidence that weakens the prosecution case could be disclosable to the defence? Do we really want to get to the truth or just get a conviction? Here's the bit I was referencing: Bad Evidence.mp3 FYI, the podcast in question is here: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

Source.