Week 13: Inquests, Inquiries and Novel Techniques

Inquests, Inquiries and Novel Techniques

Overview of Inquests, Inquiries and Reports in Ontario

An inquest is defined as a public hearing conducted by a coroner before a jury composed of five community members. The primary purpose of inquests is to inform the public regarding the circumstances surrounding a death. It is crucial to note that the conclusions drawn by the jury are not legally binding. Nonetheless, there is an expectation that any recommendations proposed by the jury, if adopted, could contribute to the prevention of similar deaths in the future. Within the context of inquests, certain deaths are characterized as mandatory, while others fall under discretionary guidelines. Importantly, there is no established time limit regarding the interval between the date of death and the initiation of an inquest.

Mandatory Inquests

Certain scenarios necessitate a mandatory inquest, which include:

  • A death occurring on the job at a construction site, mine, pit, or quarry.

  • A death occurring while an individual is in custody or being detained.

  • A death that results from injuries sustained, or events occurring while in custody, particularly if caused by the use of force by a member of law enforcement.

  • A child's death that results from a criminal act perpetrated by a person having custody of the child, provided specific circumstances are met.

  • A death of a person while being physically restrained and detained in a psychiatric facility, hospital, or secure treatment program.

Discretionary Inquests

Inquests may also be conducted at the coroner's discretion under specific criteria, which include:

  • Availability of sufficient information from the death investigation to substantiate an inquest.

  • The coroner determines that it is in the public interest to conduct an open and comprehensive hearing regarding the circumstances of the death.

  • A jury could offer valuable recommendations, potentially leading to the prevention of future deaths.

Campbell Inquiry

A public inquiry serves as a tribunal established by the Government (either federal or provincial) to investigate issues of public concern. Campbell Inquiry, which was released in June 1996, focused on the review of investigations related to crimes perpetrated by Paul Bernardo. Key issues addressed in this inquiry included:

  • Major Case Management (MCM).

  • Communication practices among law enforcement entities.

  • Co-operation and collaboration among different agencies.

  • Information sharing utilizing common software platforms.

Kaufman Report

The Kaufman Report, released in April 1998, investigated the wrongful arrest and conviction of Guy Paul Morin, accused of murdering nine-year-old Christine Jessop in October 1984. Key aspects discussed in the report include:

  • The role of opinion evidence and Criminal Forensic Science (CFS).

  • The phenomenon of tunnel vision in investigations.

  • Recognizing limitations of forensic evidence and ensuring all parties in a court proceeding are aware of these limitations.

  • The importance of retaining forensic material to facilitate potential replicative testing.

  • The imperative for scientists to aim at challenging or disproving hypotheses rather than solely attempting to prove them.

  • Defense teams' access to forensic experts is deemed necessary.

  • Recommendations for training scientists in effective testimony to prevent misinterpretation of their evidence.

Goudge Inquiry (October 2008)

This inquiry examined pediatric forensic pathology services provided to the Ontario Coroner's Office and the Canadian criminal justice system. The inquiry focused particularly on Dr. Charles Smith, who served as the pediatric pathologist at the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children from 1981 to 2005 and who was appointed as Director of the Ontario Pediatric Forensic Pathology Unit in 1992. Despite having training in anatomical and pediatric pathology, Dr. Smith lacked formal education in forensic pathology. A review panel comprising five pathologists evaluated 45 cases, with disagreements emerging on Dr. Smith's opinions or testimonies in 20 of these cases, including 13 instances where a guilty verdict was rendered.

Forensic Science in Canada: A Report of Multidisciplinary Discussion (2013)

Known as the "Hart House Report" or "NAS Light," this report stemmed from a two-day assembly held at Hart House, University of Toronto, on May 4-5, 2012. The gathering featured various forensic scientists and practitioners from throughout Canada, discussing the current status of forensic science in the country. Contributors hailed from diverse backgrounds including academia, law enforcement, laboratories, judicial systems, and medical fields, encompassing organizations such as the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), University of Toronto, Coroners Complex, Criminal Forensic Science (CFS), and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).

Goals and Objectives of the Hart House Report

The report aimed to accomplish the following goals:

  • Provide a comprehensive description of the current state of forensic science across Canada, addressing main disciplines involved in forensic inquiry.

  • Summarize critical challenges and opportunities facing the field of forensic science in Canada.

  • Offer actionable recommendations aimed at bolstering and advancing forensic scientific practices across the nation.

Novel Techniques in Forensic Science

Forensic Genetic Genealogy

Forensic genetic genealogy involves the development of a DNA profile, which is subsequently uploaded to a DNA ancestry database. This process enables investigations to trace potential relatives, assisting genealogists in constructing family trees. A notable application of this technique led the Toronto Police to identify the murderer of Christine Jessup in 1984. In 2022, the Toronto Police received a $1.5 million, three-year grant, which facilitates the processing of approximately 36 cases per year (divided evenly between Toronto and other regions of Ontario). Investigators prioritize cases involving "close-contact" murders, such as beatings, strangulations, stabbings, along with historical cases from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s that involved sexual assault.

Outcomes of Forensic Genetic Genealogy

As of February 2024, this technique has contributed to the resolution of 21 cases, with an additional 12 cases awaiting DNA confirmation before closure. In the United States, cases regularly receive resolution at a rate of approximately one cold case per week. However, the process is expensive; for example, private labs may charge $280 US per hour for genealogical expertise, with total expenses averaging around $8,000 US per case. To manage costs, the Toronto Police have employed five genealogists.

Technical Process Involved

The process typically begins with extracting Short Tandem Repeat (STR) samples for DNA profiling, which are then inputted into a DNA sequencing machine. This generates a profile comprising Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs). An SNP profile can potentially incorporate hundreds of thousands or millions of DNA markers, indicating traits such as skin color, eye color, hair color, and ancestral origins. Following this, law enforcement uploads the SNP profile to an ancestry site to identify relatives.

Identification Process

The police receive a list of potential matches based on shared DNA, ranging from none to potentially hundreds. Genealogists utilize open-source data to track the family tree back in time to locate recent common ancestors, subsequently working downwards towards the identified offender. Once a possible suspect emerges, traditional investigative techniques are employed to build the case.

Implications and Limitations

The advancement of forensic genetic genealogy raises privacy concerns. Notably, not all ancestry sites permit law enforcement to upload SNP profiles, thus requiring individuals who contribute their DNA to consent to comparisons against police profiles. This dynamic mirrors the initial stages of developing a DNA databank for criminal investigations.

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) is a non-destructive investigative method capable of detecting buried items efficiently. The technology provides rapid and precise results, enhancing its utility across varied environments. Critical to its effectiveness is the skill involved in accurately interpreting the data generated by the radar, necessitating trained operators for successful implementation.

GPR Technical Aspects

When using GPR:

  • The process begins with surveying data, which is then displayed on-site to identify potential evidence.

  • Internal GPS may geotag screenshots to maintain records for future reference, ensuring systematic documentation.

  • Reports can be transmitted via Wi-Fi or saved onto USB data sticks for analysis on computers afterward, enhancing flexible data management

  • The GPR system features a rugged touchscreen interface, allowing operators to visualize data regardless of weather conditions.

  • Optional external GPS can be incorporated for precise positioning during field acquisition.

GPR vs Metal Detectors

Comparative analysis indicates that GPR, often priced at approximately $15,000, is generally more expensive than metal detectors, which commonly cost around $1,000. GPR is capable of operating at greater depths—up to one meter—compared to a metal detector's approximated limit of 30 centimeters. Notably, GPR can investigate larger areas more efficiently and accurately; however, it requires a trained operator for effective operation and occupies more space, making transportation to investigation sites more cumbersome.

Limitations of GPR

While GPR can assist investigators in indicating probable locations for further analysis, it cannot confirm the existence of a grave or the presence of human remains. The methodology assists in identifying “potential unmarked graves,” but it is characterized by a slow operational process susceptible to environmental conditions, and requires time for comprehensive data interpretation.

Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) in Forensic Training

VR Training for Crime Scene Investigation

VR technology is increasingly being utilized for training in forensic investigations. A notable application is 'Crime 360', a web-based program developed through a partnership between the School of Criminal Justice and Criminology and the Emerging Analytics Center at the University of Arkansas, which provides virtual training experiences for law enforcement personnel.

Advantages of VR Training

Research indicates that students who engage in VR learning tend to recall information better and achieve higher scores on assessments. Some essential advantages of VR-based training include:

  • Enhanced learning experiences compared to traditional methods such as videos or textbooks.

  • Increased engagement and participation from learners.

  • Typically lower costs than conventional e-learning approaches.

  • Flexible delivery of content, which can be passive (video watching), semi-interactive (watching with questions), or fully interactive (enabling participants to take actions or make decisions).

Other Potential Uses for VR

Utilizing VR technology also holds promise for various applications beyond training, extending into areas such as courtroom simulations, cold case investigations, research studies, and peer reviews.

AR Functionality and Application

Augmented Reality (AR) further enhances forensic investigation capabilities by streaming video from body cameras worn by officers to experts in remote locations. Experts can provide real-time guidance and annotate scenes through verbal or visual notes. Officers may access this information via a smartphone or head-mounted devices such as Google Glass, thereby augmenting both the virtual and real-world experience, facilitating more effective investigations.