Stage
1 - Initial Response
This
is always the first stage of the investigation process and relates to how a
suspected crime was reported. It can be
reported through a telephone call to the police, a witness visiting a police
station, a link being established to another crime/s from intelligence
gathered, information that is new which will require a re-investigation of an
allegation of a crime or a crime that is currently being investigated, the
result of other police actions or the police responding to a referral they have
received from other agencies, this is referred to as a reactive approach.
The
initial response to a report of a crime is to accurately record all the
relevant information in order to assess if a crime has been committed and what
resources need to be allocated to investigate the crime, such as; police, scene
of crime officers (SOCOs), for medical examiner or coroner etc. . .
The
first officer/s attending (FOAs) at a crime scene will assess the scene and
offer support and advice to the victim, if applicable. If a major crime has been committed, such as
a rape or murder they will alert their supervisors and await the arrival of
senior officers. The responsibilities of
the first officer/s attending (FAOs) are to check if the victim is alive and if
so administer first aid the victim while awaiting medical assistance. If the victim is deceased their priorities
become the preservation of the crime scene, cordoning off the crime scene with
crime scene tape to secure any evidence, secure any witnesses and the possible
identification of the victim.
The
initial response to a reported crime is the most vital stage of the investigation
process. Following the correct
procedures at a pace suited to the crime committed will have a direct impact on
the outcome of the case at it increases the possibility for a positive outcome,
resulting in the apprehension and conviction of the perpetrator of the crime.
If a
crime is not reported to the police and an investigation instigated there can
be no justice for the victim and the perpetrator could go on to commit further
crimes.
In
the case of Aileen Wuornos the initial response was individual to each crime;
Richard Mallory
Following
the discovery of an abandoned vehicle, on the 1st of December 1989,
both Deputy John Bonnevier and County Deputy Sheriff John Bondi decided to
investigate the vehicle as it clearly looked suspicious. They were able to visually identify what they
presumed to be blood behind the vehicles steering wheel. As part of the initial response to reported
crime it was essential for Deputy John Bonnevier and County Deputy Sheriff John
Bondi to identify whether support was required for anyone at the scene. However, support was not required in this
instance as nobody, whether they be; victim, culprit or witness was
located. If an individual was present at
the scene and was injured in some form then it would have been the
responsibility of Deputy John Bonnevier and County Deputy Sheriff John Bondi to
call for assistance from another form of public service department such as the
ambulance or the fire department. As the
circumstances surrounding the discovery of the vehicle appeared to be
suspicious the incident was reported and the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement proceeded to dispatch the scene of crimes officer (SOCO). The scene of crimes officer would be
responsible for locating, analysing and interpreting any forensic evidence that
would be relevant to the investigation.
Twelve
days later, Wednesday the 13th of December 1989, a phone call was
received which informed the police department that a body had been
located. The phone call came from Jimmy
Bonchi and James Davis. Volusia County
deputies were in charge of following up the phone call and on arrival at the
location were Jimmy Bonchi and James Davis had stated the body was located; they
too came across a severely decomposed body.
After the Volusia County deputies confirmed the report of a body being
found the detectives and a pathologist were informed as the cause of death
needed to be identified. The cause of
death, determined by the pathologist, would have informed the police if the
incident was the result of a homicide which would in turn involve further
investigation. It was not necessary for
additional support to be provided as the individual was deceased.
David Spears
On
Sunday the 20th of May 1990 a truck was discovered, although the
circumstances surrounding the discovery of the vehicle are not stated in any
documentation available. The discovery
of the vehicle was investigated by the police department who will have recorded
the location of the abandoned truck and requested that the scene of crimes
officer (SOCO) was dispatched in order to gather any evidence. No support was required for anyone who was
present at the scene as the truck had been abandoned.
Twelve
days later, Friday the 1st June 1990, Mathew Cocking phoned the
police department to report the location of a body he had come across. The incident was formally recorded and the
police and the scene of crimes officer (SOCO) were dispatched to
investigate. The phone call from Mathew
Cocking will have enabled him to inform the police regarding the condition of
the victim to enable the authorities to identify whether or not any support was
necessary for the victim. In this case
support was not required as the victim was clearly deceased.
Charles Carskaddon
On
Wednesday the 6th of June 1990 a body was discovered, but by whom I
am unable to state as the court documentation that is available does not state
who it was that discovered the body. It
could have been the police who discovered the body or it could have been a
member of the general public and they could have reported the presence of the
deceased via a phone call to the police department. Following the report to the police department
about the discovery of a body, the police and the scene of crimes officer
(SOCO) would have been dispatched to investigate further. The crime would have been formally recorded
and the individual that had phoned the police department would have been asked
about the condition of the victim to ascertain whether or not support was
required, in this case no medical assistance was required for the
individual.
On
Thursday the 7th of June a vehicle was located not far from where
the body was discovered. The vehicle was
found to belong to a Mr Charles Carskaddon.
Peter Siems
On
Wednesday the 4th of July at 9.44pm Trooper Rickey arrived at a
scene involving a crashed vehicle, having been alerted to the incident via a
phone call from the emergency service department. Trooper Rickey was able to identify the
vehicles owner as being a Mr Peter Siems.
As there were no victims or any other individuals present at the scene
that required assistance no support was necessary from the ambulance
service. Trooper Rickey identified what
he presumed to be the presence of blood in the vehicles interior and so
requested the presence of investigators and a scene of crimes officer (SOCO) in
order to investigate further.
Eugene Burress
On
Tuesday the 31st of July 1990 the partner of Eugene Burress
telephoned the police department to report that her husband was missing. The Marion County deputies located Mr
Burress’s vehicle that he used for work and noted that there were no keys
present at the scene and there was no sign of the missing individual. However, on Saturday the 4th of
August the report came into the police department that informed the authorities
that an individual had been discovered in a state of severe decomposition. As there were no victims or any other
individuals present at the scene that required assistance no support was
necessary from the ambulance service.
Charles Humphreys
Although
the date is unclear in the documentation the wife of Charles Humphreys reported
her husband missing after he failed to return home, the search for Mr Humphreys
led to the discovery of his body “off CR 484”.
The incident was reported by the police department and Mr Humphrey’s
wife would have been informed. As there
were no other individuals present at the scene that required assistance no
support was necessary from the ambulance service. The investigators, scene of crimes officers
(SOCO) and a pathologist would have been requested to attend the scene in order
for further investigations to be carried out.
On Wednesday the 19th of September
1990 Mr Humphreys vehicle was located, although who or at what time the car was
located is not stated in any of the documentation available.
Walter Gino Antonio
On
Sunday the 18th of November 1990 a police officer reported the
location of a corpse that he had discovered.
The victim did not require any further support as they were unresponsive
and not breathing. The police department
would have requested the presence of investigators, scene of crimes officer
(SOCO) and a pathologist. The
pathologist would be able to determine the approximate time of death and
apparent cause of death, prior to the transportation of the body to a medical
facility for an autopsy.
On
Saturday the 24th of November 1990 the vehicle, identified by the
police department as belonging to a Mr Walter Gino Antonio, was located but
whether the vehicle was discovered by the police or a member of the general
public is unclear.
No comments:
Post a Comment