Stages of the Investigation

Initial response to reported crime

The initial response to a crime is the way in which a crime is first reported to the police and then the resulting response to this report of the crime. This stage comes first as it is the way in which the authorities become aware of a crime, because of this, this stage is a very important one as without it the police would not be aware of a crime and therefore an investigation would not take place. There are many ways in which crimes can be reported to the police in order for them to respond to the alert and depending on the situation. Some examples of how crimes can be reported include: the victim of the crime reporting a crime against them or witnesses of the crime reporting the crime usually via a 999 call. 
This stage of the investigation is important because without the initial response there is no crime that has been reported, therefore no investigation will be carried out. This part of the investigation process will always be carried out first because this forms the basis of what type of crime the investigation team will be investigating.
On August 4th 2002, Holly and Jessica had left a family barbecue to go and get some sweets but when their parents realised that they had been gone for too long they decided to report them missing to the police at 9.56pm after failing to locate them. The police sent out a photo of the girls that was taken a few hours prior to their disappearance to all TV stations and described them as "white, 4 ft. 6 tall and slim." 13 days later, on August 17th 2002 a 999 call from a local gamekeeper, Keith Pryer alerted the team at the incident room in Soham that he had found 2 bodies in a ditch near the perimeter fence of RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk, about 6 miles from Soham. This relates back to the importance of initial response because if crimes were not reported, especially in this case, there would be no arrests or no bodies would be found and evidence would not be collected. The initial response is vital as it is a starting point in all investigations and in this case, leads to a successful conviction.  

Preliminary Investigation: 

The next stage of the investigation is where the investigation actually begins. The preliminary investigation is where an evaluation of the crime which has taken place is carried out, in order to assess if further action needs to be taken. This is a significant stage of the investigation as it is where critical evidence is preserved and is identified as being evidence. Examples of processes which arise within the preliminary investigation stage include; the crime scene being cordoned off, premises being searched and evidence being confiscated.
The preliminary investigation is an important part of the investigation because it determine whether a crime needs further investigation or whether it should be closed. This part of the investigation is always carried out straight after the crime has been verified.
After Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were reported missing, the Cambridgeshire police had to interview all witnesses or find potential suspects within the most important 24 hour period, therefore they set up an incident room in a local Soham school hall, so that everything is in one place. At first, the police suspected it was the same suspect of an abduction in the county of a previous year so their focus was on finding this suspect and even appealing for information on 'Crimewatch' even though they had no evidence to link these two crimes together which cost them valuable time to find the girls. Cambridgeshire police interviewed parents, family members, friends of families, possible witnesses who were around the area at the time but they did not find anything useful. The preliminary investigation in this case found out that it was very severe and very vital in the early stages of the investigation that action needs to be taken and further investigations are required which lead to the police finding out who was responsible for this crime.

The Investigation Plan

The following stage of the investigation process which occurs when a crime has been committed is the investigation plan. This stage rationally has to come after the preliminary investigation as after initial evidence has been discovered during the preliminary investigation a plan has to be made on how to proceed with the investigation. The investigation plan is an essential stage of the investigation process as it ensures that the investigation which takes place into the crime is organised and controlled. Another key part of this stage is gathering of all crime scene evidence, witness statements and victims, this is important for the additional lines of enquiry. Without any of this, the investigators will have no lines of enquiry to investigate and the case could be potentially closed. The final part of this stage is the organisation of the community impact, this is important because the community can sometimes get in the way of an investigation, or they can help out extremely. Therefore the investigation team will make an assessment of whether or not the investigation will benefit from community support.

This stage should be carried out as soon as the police identify the severity of the crime and the likelihood of solving it. Also this stage is important because if the investigators don’t highlight any potential leads from the start then they cannot fully start an investigation. Finally this stage is important because if the case goes to court and the investigators have made a successful investigation plan it will certainly lead to a successful prosecution.
A successful investigation will require a good plan and organisation skills by the leading officer, however in this case, it is proven that the police did not have any plan at all. Cambridgeshire Constabulary is a modest sized force and during the early stages of the investigation, which became known as Operation Fincham, there had been queries raised in the media as to the force’s ability to manage a high profile case of such proportions. Further media comment was made upon the absence of the Chief Constable on leave. During the course of the investigation and trial, it further came to notice that there had been significant failings with regard to police vetting procedures in both Cambridgeshire and Humberside in relation to Huntley’s appointment as a caretaker in a school on the same complex as that attended by Jessica and Holly. At the beginning of the investigation the police's main priority was to find the girls as soon as possible as they suspected it was an abduction, therefore they put pictures of local witnesses and suspects on the news, appealing for information to lead to further lines of inquiry and they were hopeful to find Holly and Jessica alive within the first 5 days. Relating back to the importance of this stage, the community and the police’s plan to help find the girls were extremely helpful and the community were willing to help with searches, suspects and witness statements. Unfortunately, it was too late and 2 weeks later, the girls’ bodies were found in a ditch a few miles away by a passer-by walking his dog, and therefore this stage may not always be successful.

The Incident Room:

The next stage in the investigation process is when an incident room is set up. An incident room is a base which allows the police to co-ordinate all operations from one place. This is a consistent place in which this stage is incorporated into the investigation process, as it allows the public to call or drop in and give information which may be relevant to the case after news of the investigation reaches the community. Although this may not be seen as one of the most imperative stages, this is still an important part of the investigation process as it provides the public with assurance that an investigation is occurring and it also allows the community to either get involved with the investigation or to feel more involved with the investigation. This is especially important in cases which involve the death of a person or the abduction of a child as in R v Huntley.

An incident room is an important part of an investigation, although it is not always used. The benefit of opening an incident room early in the investigation is it allows potential witnesses to come forward who may not be from the area. This allows investigators to secure a witness statement before they leave the area. Also witnesses will be able to remember a lot more of what they know/saw straight away rather than a couple of months down the line. This is why it is important for an incident room to be set up immediately in an investigation.
Dedicated and well trained staff set up an incident room particularly when there is an abduction or a general public threat, the staff are specialised in that specific incident - this is call a major incident team (MIT). In the Soham case, this was initialised straight away and started to interview potential witnesses set up at local school and the incident room was operational for over 2 weeks. 

Investigating Leads:

This stage of the investigation process naturally and understandably comes next, this is because the leads which will be investigated will either have come from the evidence found in in either the preliminary or follow up investigations or these leads will have come from public information given at the incident room. This stage involves processes such as house-to-house inquiries forensic testing on evidence and pathology results on any deceased victims. This investigating leads stage is a very important stage as it is when suspects to the crime may begin to emerge, and also when information can be gained about exactly what happened regarding the crime.
The different ways investigation team can investigate leads are:

·         Forensic Strategy- This is where they take any evidence from the scene and forensically examine it in order to place a suspect at the scene of a crime

·         House-to-house enquiries- The investigation team may do this in order to reach possible witnesses of the crime, or to see if anyone has any valuable information for the crime.

·         Surveillance- The investigation team has the power to place anyone suspected of committing the crime under 24-hour-surveillance. This not only identifies the behaviour of the suspect but it can also uncover any other potential suspects in the case.

·         Pathology- This helps the investigation team determine the cause of death, these results can sometimes help uncover a story to what might of happened at the crime scene.

·         Financial Investigation- Investigating someone’s financial background can help the investigation team uncover a direct reasoning to why a victim was killed. It can also help link suspects to the crime.

·         TIE strategy- This strategy is normally used when the investigation team have a number of suspects. Therefore to help the investigation move more quickly, the investigation team will trace suspects, interview them and if they are innocent they will be eliminated. This helps the investigation team get closer to the suspects.

This whole process can happen numerous times in the investigation. For example, if a suspect was taken to court and they were told they never had enough evidence to charge the suspect, then the investigation team would have to start over collecting more and more evidence. However, it is a very important stage in the investigation process because investigating the leads help bring the suspect to justice by proving they are guilty.
At the start of this investigation the police had no clues into where Holly and Jessica had gone or what had happened to them, they were relying on witnesses to point them into the right direction and one step closer in finding them. Sky news later interviewed Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr on different occasions (you can view these videos on the surveillance page) and the reporter noticed that they were talking about the girls as if they were dead by talking in the past tense so he informed the police of his findings so they were analysed but this was not enough proof to bring him in for questioning. Forensic experts were called in when a bin was found containing Holly and Jessica's red Manchester United t shirts and other clothing were found cut and burned in an outbuilding of Soham Village College. Police discovered them after finding a set of keys in Huntley's home. After analysis they found Ian Huntley's hairs, fingerprints and DNA around the bin and in bags surrounding the area and in Huntley's home. This resulted in Huntley's arrest where they found Maxine Carr to be his accomplice. 

Follow up Investigations

The follow up investigation then leads on from the investigation plan stage, this is the valid place for this stage to fall as it involves further action being taken depending on the results and findings of the preliminary investigation and what has been planned in the investigation plan stage. This stage is quite important as it gives the police an opportunity to gain more evidence and to carry out further examinations to gain more information about the crime which has occurred.
Ian Huntley was unsuspected at first to be the person behind this brutal story but in 2001 there were no safety measures when it came to hiring people, especially in school and when Huntley was interviewed for the position of caretaker at Soham Village College and nobody knew about his convicted past of being a sex offender. In the years after he left school, Huntley already seemed to have developed an interest in young girls, and he was seen out with 13-year-old girls when he was eighteen. In December 1994, Huntley met 18-year-old Claire Evans, embarked on a whirlwind romance, and married her within weeks. The marriage was short-lived, however, and she left Huntley within days, moving in with Huntley’s younger brother Wayne. An enraged Huntley refused to grant his wife a divorce until 1999, preventing his brother’s marriage to Evans. Following the collapse of his marriage, Huntley became more nomadic, moving from one rented flat to the next, frequently changing jobs. He had a succession of relationships, one of which was with a 15-year-old girl, with whom he fathered a daughter in 1998. A subsequent inquiry revealed that between 1995 and 2001, Huntley had sexual contacts with eleven underage girls, ranging between 11 and 17 years old. On 7 January 1998, he appeared at Grimsby Crown Court charged with having burgled a neighbour's house, and in May 1998, he was charged with the rape of an 18-year-old girl in Grimsby. Neither case proceeded to court due to lack of evidence, but the rape allegation tainted him substantially. In February 1999 he met 22-year-old Maxine Carr at a nightclub, and they moved in together after four weeks. The relationship endured despite some turbulent rows, and they moved to Littleport, near Soham, in 2001, where Huntley took a job at the Soham Village Centre as the manager of a team of caretakers. In September 2001 he applied for the post of caretaker at Soham Village College, and in November 2001, despite his history of sexual contact with minors, he was awarded the position. Carr was employed as a teaching assistant at the local primary school. Huntley's past was perceived as a shock to the police and to the rest of the community which later lead to introducing CRB checks before being employed to work with children across the UK.

Researching and Analysing Intelligence

Next in the investigative process is when intelligence such as who is committing crimes, and where the crimes are being committed is researched and analysed by the police. This stage logically has to come here as intelligence may come from any leads obtained in the previous stage of the investigative process. Within this stage, crime problems such as burglaries in the area will be looked at as a whole in the area, or the police may focus at looking solely at an individual. This stage is significant as intelligence on a particular person may result in the police to gathering more considerable evidence against a suspect.

This stage of the investigation process is fairly important because if the investigation team don’t have any suspect name or details from witness statements, then they can use this research from the local area to highlight potential suspects. For example if the was a rape investigation, the investigation team could look at people in the local area who are known sex offenders and interview them accordingly. There is a potential for this part of the investigation not to be carried out if the police can link an offender in order means such as forensic evidence.
A Newmarket taxi driver Ian Webster reported to the police having seen at the time of the abductions (approx. 7 pm) a metallic green saloon car which was being driven erratically and suicidal down the A142, the road that runs between Soham and Newmarket where Warren Hill stands. Ian Webster had been following this car and had pulled back two hundred yards because of the dangerous driving. He reported seeing the driver careering into the curbs on both sides of the road while struggling with two children in his car. The driver was reaching out backwards over his seat and flapping at something in the hands of a child in the back seat. Mr Webster said that this child had brown hair, and that he thought there was another child in the front seat. Given the fact that the driver was driving in this way with children in his car, his behaviour cannot have been any other than that of the abductor himself, and given the timing also, this incident cannot describe any other situation than the abduction. The girl with the brown hair in the back seat would have been Jessica and she was the one with the mobile phone. The abductor would not have been able to stop his car to deal with any problem with this because the girls would have been able to get out of the car and run away. Shortly before this, there were unconfirmed sightings of the two girls on the southern edge of Soham near a Q8 petrol filling station and a roundabout. It was from this point that Webster followed this car. In sum, the geography, timing, circumstantial factors and behavioural features of this incident can leave no doubt that Mr Webster had witnessed the actual abduction. His experience links Warren Hill and Newmarket with Soham through a rather different style of killer than Ian Huntley, just as the forensic evidence and the dumping of the bodies at Lakenheath linked them together in a case against him. Jessica's mobile phone contacted the mast at Burwell when it was switched off, and this is half-way between Soham and Newmarket. This circumstance connects the jogger incident with that of Ian Webster and the abductions at Soham. The police lost interest in Mr Webster's testimony, despite its irrefutable authenticity, when it was discovered that a passenger's mobile phone bill had clocked the incident at 6 pm instead of 7 pm. This technical anomaly cannot discount Mr Webster's driver as an obvious suspect, and the timing of the mobile phone call would have to be questioned or distrusted. Their disregarding the facts of the incident instead shows that the police are allowing juries and trial procedure to determine how they detect their crimes rather than the events themselves. It was when Ian Huntley and Maxine Carr took part in an interview to plea for the girls to come home that the police noticed the strange behaviour, this took their focus off Ian Webster as the main suspect as they decided to proceed Ian Huntley as a suspect leading to searching his properties and work place where the evidence piled up against him and they discovered that Maxine Carr was his accomplice and covering up this horrific crime, the girls bodies were found just hours later. When sky news notified the investigation team of Ian Huntley’s and Maxine Carr’s strange behaviour during their interview they started to investigate their background and behaviours in order to gain evidence and point to a suspect which eventually lead to their arrest and conviction based on evidence found at the crime scene and their criminal records.

Gathering and Analysing Facts

This is probably the most important stage in the investigation because it’s the stage where all the facts get linked to the suspect. This stage in the investigation process is when all the facts which have been obtained through the preliminary and follow up investigations, through any leads or through the analysis of intelligence are collected together and all analysed. This phase therefore logically has to come after all the other stages have been carried out. Facts which may be gathered and analysed at this stage contain; forensic evidence, witness statements and information about any possible suspects – such as any previous convictions they may have. This stage allows for the investigators to organise all of the facts they have and examine which of these facts are the most important, potentially building up evidence against a certain suspect or suspects.

This stage is usually carried out once the forensic evidence has been received, witnesses interviewed and a suspect identified.   Depending on whether this stage is successful depends on how many times it will be carried out. For example if a suspect when to court and was acquitted of a crime, then the investigation team would have to gather and analyse all the facts again to see if any more evidence comes to light.
When police searched the area where the victims were found and in the school where Huntley tried to burn their clothes there was sufficient forensic evidence found enough for a conviction, such as; hair, DNA and fingerprints which was a 100% match to Ian Huntley. At the start of this investigation Huntley and Carr were considered witnesses therefore there was no other witnesses placing them near the victims when they went missing so the police had no evidence pointing to the pair and they had other suspects who had connections with abductions or Holly and Jessica. The investigation lead to the facts of Huntley's past and to the discovery of the girls bodies, in which the analysis of the evidence collected showed what truly happened on August 4th 2002. This stage is key in any investigation that is wanting a conviction as it ties all of the evidence together to paint a picture for the judge and jury and in the Soham case, there was no doubt that the two on trial committed these murders to which the jury agreed when all evidence had been heard.

Identifying Patterns and Links

Identifying Patterns and Links is the following stage of the set out stages of the investigative process. This step involves the police looking at intelligence and finding any patterns connected to crimes or suspects, for example patterns of murders by a serial killer, or patterns of burglaries in the area. During this stage information will be shared between other police forces and agencies. This stage’s significance depends on the type of crime being investigated. For example In the case of a serial killer a pattern may lead the police to the suspect and arrest the murderer. However, if the crime is a one off crime such as a one off murder, the killer is likely to not have left patterns; therefore this stage would not be so important however, it should still be included in the investigation process to assess any conceivable patterns. Reasonably, this stage in the investigation process has to come after intelligence has been collected and any facts and intelligence has been analysed as this is the information that would allow the police to identify any patters or links in crimes.

This stage can be important if the investigation team are looking to link the suspect to other similar crimes in the area. Also if the police can’t identify a suspect in their area, they might ask for information from other forces across the country to identify a suspect. This process can be carried out at any stage of the process, either when the investigators have or haven’t identified someone.
There was no pattern identified in Huntley's way of murder, however he was very interested in children as he was convicted of having sex with a minor yet the vetting system blundered as he was hired as a school caretaker without having his criminal record checked by police. Humberside Police was accused of "systematic and corporate" failings after an inquiry, led by Sir Michael Bichard, found the force had failed to keep records of the allegations against Huntley, or share them with police in Cambridgeshire. Humberside and Cambridgeshire police forces worked together in this investigation as they had to widen their search when the girls initially were reported missing and they were not hopeful for their safe return. They shared evidence and eventually found the victims’ bodies and their killer, however it is still left debated in whether it was their fault in first sight as they were responsible for lack of vetting in the Soham area and therefore lead to Huntley's occupation within the school.

Ethical Conditions

The use of Media in the investigation process has its pros and cons. It media can greatly help a case through publication around the country, which can encourage witnesses to come forward. However the press publicising the case can cause the public to go into panic especially if they haven’t solved the case. Also the press can cause the public to give false leads to the police, thinking they are ‘helping’ when in fact they’re just wasting police time.

At this stage of the investigation process is where ethical considerations begin to be addressed. This stage involves assessing whether the use of the media could help with the case or not. In many investigations where the use of the media would be helpful, this is where this stage would fit in. For example, reassuring the community to help in the search for a missing child. Or to get the face of a suspect in the news so that the public may call in with information if they recognise the person or believed they saw something related to the crime. However, as mentioned the media can also impede in an investigation, and cause ethical concerns. For example; this could happen if a person was wrongly accused of a serious crime such as a murder, if the media was to invade their lives and ruin their reputation publicly, it could potentially lead to awful consequences, this would also be an ethical problem as it is not right to accuse a person as being guilty before they are actually convicted.
This stage in the investigation process is not particularly important, however if the media isn’t  controlled on what they can and can’t report by the police it can cause the public to panic, which can potentially put the case in jeopardy. If the media is managed by the police, it can help the case hugely. Depending on what type of case it is the police may choose whether or not to get the media involved from the start for example if the case is a missing child or children, it can produce a more positive outcome of the investigation because the public can help in the search, creating a bigger probability of the missing child or children being found safe and sound.
n this situation, the media did not raise any unethical actions during this investigation as they were praised when they lead the police to Ian Huntley after analysis of the interview given to Sky News. They were also helpful in posting a missing report on the girls throughout the country which made it a high profile case. However in some cases, false information is irresponsibly created by the press and can reduce audiences to passive recipients who have a heightened sense of fear about the threat of crimes against children.

Report Writing and Evidence in Court

This is the final step in the investigation process and is probably the most important stage because ultimately it can lead to a successful conviction if done right and potentially lead to an acquittal if done wrong. Everything in the case such as report writing and evidence is all presented to the jury in the form of a case file. Within the case file is a brief summary of the whole case, witness statements, itemised list of evidence and the analysis of forensic evidence and anything to do with the suspect such as their background. This case file is then presented to the court, in order for the jury to reach a verdict. At this stage of the investigation is where all the information assembled throughout the whole investigation is compiled into a case file and prepared for presentation in a court room. This file contains information regarding any previous convictions a suspect may have and a general overview of the case written by the officer who is dealing with the case. This file also contains witness statements, a catalogued list of evidence and exhibits such as photograph and also an analysis of any forensic evidence. This case file is used by the prosecution in court against the defendant. When presenting evidence in court the prosecution (CPS), always presents their evidence first, and then the defence will follow, presenting their case. In a court case after both the prosecution and defence have presented their evidence they both summarise their case and the judge and jury make a final decision on the outcome of the case.

The trials of Huntley and Carr opened, to worldwide media interest, at the Old Bailey, on 5 November 2003. Huntley was faced with two murder charges, while Carr was charged with perverting the course of justice and assisting an offender. The prosecution entered an immense amount of evidence linking Huntley to the girls and 3 weeks into the trial, despite previously having denied any knowledge of their murders, Huntley suddenly changed his story, admitting that the girls had died in his house, but he claimed that both deaths were accidental. The defence called Huntley as their first witness, and he described how he had accidentally knocked Holly Wells into the bath, whilst helping her control a nosebleed, and had accidentally suffocated Chapman when she started to scream, and he had tried to silence her. Carr's testimony began three days later, when it was claimed that she had no control over the events on the day of the murder, and that had she known of Huntley’s murderous intent, she would never have lied to protect him. Following her testimony, the prosecution presented their closing statements, claiming that both Carr and Huntley were convincing liars, and also that Huntley’s motive for murdering the girls was sexual, although physical evidence of assault was impossible to prove. After 5 days of deliberation, the jury rejected Huntley’s claims that the girls had died accidentally and on 17 December 2003, returned a majority verdict of guilty on both charges. Huntley was sentenced to life imprisonment, but there was a delay on the setting of his tariff, as the 2003 Criminal Justice Act came into force one day after his conviction. This new act passed the decision on how long a prisoner given a life sentence would serve from the Home Secretary to judges. At a hearing on 29 September 2005, a judge ruled that the Soham killings did not meet the criteria for a “whole-life” tariff, which was now reserved for sexual, sadistic or abduction cases only under the new act, and imposed a 40 year prison sentence, which offers Huntley very little hope for release. On 14 September 2005, Huntley had been attacked by another inmate at Belmarsh Prison, and scalded with boiling water, which prevented him from attending this sentencing hearing. Carr was cleared of assisting an offender, but found guilty of perverting the course of justice, and jailed for three-and-a-half years, but she was freed under police protection in May 2004, as she had already spent 16 months on remand, pending the trial. Carr was given a new identity upon her release and on 24 February 2005, was granted an indefinite order protecting her new identity by the High Court, on the basis that her life would be in danger were her new identity to be revealed.