The Gazette 1979

GAZETTE

JULY-AUGUST 1979

intelligence, for lack of scientific expertise and for placing

too much reliance on interrogation of suspects.

Considering how hampered the Gardai are by passive

and active resistance and by restrictive rules and

regulations, most of which have not been reviewed for

centuries, it often amazes me that so many crimes are

solved.

Apart from the small number or instances where

culprits are caught in the act of committing a crime or in

possession of firearms, explosives or stolen property the

only means of detecting crime are:—

(1) Expert examination of the scene of the crime;

(2) Collection of evidence from the injured party

and witnesses;

(3) Criminal intelligence and obtaining information

from informers 'fellow criminals';

(4) The questioning of suspects.

(1) Entails a thorough meticulous éxamination of the

scene of the crime for minute traces and clues left by the

culprit at the scene or which may have become attached

to his person or clothing from the scene. The most

common of these clues are fingermarks, blood smears,

semen, hair, fibres, soil stains, saliva, explosives residue,

cartridge cases, fragments of glass.

Professional criminals don't make a habit of leaving

obvious material clues lying around the scene of a crime.

So to locate and develop such traces requires highly

skilled scientific techniques and processes embracing

many of the physical sciences. Some clues have a positive

investigative value as they indicate a definite line of

enquiry but most of them are of no use until a suspect is

traced and matched up with the evidence found at the

scene. How can this be done if we cannot detain the

suspect and get samples?

(2) The collection of evidence from victims, if alive, and

from witnesses.

This entails deep penetrative questioning with great

attention to detail, but while we can ask questions and are

expected to make such enquiries, there is no obligation on

any potential witness to answer. There is a distinct

reluctance by most people to become involved, first there

is the traditional fear of being regarded as an informer;

there is the fear of retaliation by a criminal or criminal

groups; there is the fear of having to go to Court as a

witness and to being subjected to severe cross-

examination and even abuse. There is the inconvenience

of being involved at all. Even those who might be willing

to assist are often too frightened to do so. There are

many instances of people who are not only reluctant to

co-operate but who do everything to thwart the

investigation and to help the suspect to cover up. This

unwillingness to become involved, results in many

potential witnesses refusing to answer any questions or

make a statement. Others who are better disposed to

assisting will disclose any knowledge they have, only on a

strictly confidential basis and on the clear understanding

that their names will not be used and that they will not

under any circumstances be brought to Court as a

witness. In many instances this information may be

positive, clearly naming the culprit, but as it cannot be

used as evidence the Gardai must try to do, what the

ordinary citizen shirks doing, and the only way they can

is to interrogate the suspect.

These are understandable reluctances and fears and

unless some statutory means of protecting witnesses is

introduced by making any form of intimidation a more

grave offence than that under investigation and by

making the withholding of information an offence, then

the Gardai will have no alternative but to rely even more

on interrogation of the suspect in the hope of getting an

admission.

The third method of detecting crime is the building up

of a system of intelligence from police observation, from

developing contacts and obtaining information from

fellow criminals and informers. In the case of fellow

criminals and informers the reliability of the information

has to be carefully assessed and checked for accuracy lest

it be motivated by revenge, or in the hope of currying

favour. Special care has to be taken to shield and protect

the source, lest he or his family be embarrassed or their

lives endangered. Of course no matter how reliable or

accurate this information is, it is of no evidential value

and again the investigator has no alternative but to resort

to questioning of suspects.

So no matter how good criminal intelligence, no matter

how accurate the information, if witnesses are not

prepared to come forward and give evidence, and if

interrogation of suspects is not permitted, or if permitted

and the suspect will not answer any questions and is

under no obligation to do so crimes just cannot be solved.

The effectiveness of the law depends on the ability to

enforce it.

Which brings me to the final method of investigation

that one that is practically forced on us, the interrogation

of suspects. It is not with any relish that we rely on

interrogation as a means of obtaining evidence, it is

simply that in most cases there is no option and this

applies not only to the Gardai but in all countries where a

system similar to ours is operated.

At the initial stages of the investigation of any major

crime there are for various reasons a number of possible

suspects. Any experienced investigator realises that any

one of these may be the actual culprit but he also realises

that as additional facts are discovered additional suspects

may be indicated so one of the first priorities is to

eliminate the suspects who were not involved. This

process is made very easy when the suspect readily co-

operates by accounting for where he was at the crucial

times and which when checked is found to be correct. If

however he tells lies and his story does not check out this

heightens the suspicion. It may transpire on deeper

probing that he lied to cover up some embarrassment

which has to be satisfactorily checked out before he can be

eliminated from the investigation. When he doesn't

answer any questions and refuses to talk then the

suspicion remains and he cannot be eliminated from the

investigation. This means that members of the

investigation party must concentrate on finding other

evidence to either eliminate him from the investigation or

if this is not possible to target him as a prime suspect. The

process works on the basis of reducing the number of

suspects as quickly as possible by working from known

facts to establish the unknown — never trying to make

the suspect fit the facts which is regarded as the hallmark

of inexperience.

A lot has been said and written about the danger of

innocent persons being suspected, being subjected to

interrogation and being wrongly convicted and this is very

proper and it is a matter that we must all guard against.

The present system of advising every person whether

112