Collating and reporting evidence

Like any other excavation, the archaeologist’s work moves into post-excavation mode once the excavation aspect of the work is over but, unlike most excavations, the written report or statement will need to be produced as soon as possible after the event. By virtue of working in the grave the archaeologist is likely to be a significant expert witness, and the SIO will want to ensure that all the evidence from the various scene individuals is collated and tied together rapidly. Crime scene personnel are accus-tomed to completing necessary paperwork before moving to the next scene, and the archaeologist will need to ensure that he or she can also respond appropriately by making the necessary records throughout the excavation process. Some scene specialists prefer to use dictaphones, other prefer making written notes, but both types of record, together with other material, will be disclosable (see Chapter 7, Section 7.4). There is a delicate balance here, on the one hand in avoiding production of a text from memory and retrospect on the basis of a few notes and records taken at the time, and on the other, creating too much text during the recovery process.

Figure 4.6 The recovery of a footprint underneath a buried body Source: courtesy of Durham

Constabulary.

Most UK police forces use a bound and page-numbered standard crime scene recording log and some forensic archaeologists have adopted this strategy. Alternatively, the archaeologist’s notes can be included in the actual Crime Scene Log avoiding unnecessary duplication or contradiction. Reasons for using pro formas are varied but one notable aspect is that it allows the record to be used as an aide-mémoire to ensure that all important aspects of recording are considered, even if subsequently rejected for good reasons. Working at a crime scene can be stressful and it is all too easy to for-get the obvious when under pressure. Further, having a bound and page-numbered system ensures that the complete record will be submitted and cannot be ‘doctored’

either by addition or omission at the point of disclosure. Essentially this strategy is ‘back-covering’ as well as efficient. To keep too scant a record can be criticised as being an inadequate record and therefore unprofessional, while over-recording exposes itself to cross-examination if it contains excessive interpretation and hypothesis. The correct balance provides objective observation and record which can be transferred quickly into simple narrative, irrespective of the recording medium used.

The minimum level of essential site documentation is likely to include completed context recording sheets, appropriate plans and sections which incorporate an overview of the site in relation to fixed points together with any outlying sample locations, any notes and narrative, and photographs. All this information is disclosable and, as on any other archaeological site, all the documentation should have internal consistency of cross-reference. Bound sets of context cards, other records, drawings and plans, or any photographs are all likely to require exhibit numbers and will require adherence to continuity procedures (e.g. Melbye and Jimenez 1997; see also Chapter 7, Section 7.5). They constitute primary evidence and are afforded the same processual status as Figure 4.7 A deliberately placed layer or false horizon in the fill of a grave (case 19)

exhibits recovered from within the grave, or even a murder weapon. They will be numbered and tagged as such, and any transfer from one person to another will need to be logged, recorded and signed for. Copies of records can be retained by the archae-ologist, and it is in the interest of the archaeologist to do so, and to produce the records in a form which is amenable to photocopying in the first place.

In reality, most clandestine burials will contain very few individual contexts, real or arbitary, and the number of context sheets is likely to be fairly small. The context record is also likely to be relatively simple and reflect straightforward superimposition of layers, rather than the complex stratigraphy encountered, for example, on many medieval sites. It is, however, important that the records are completed adequately, even if the information required by standard archaeological forms may seem superfluous. Key aspects for recording are the relationships of layers (e.g. ‘sealed’, ‘cut by’, etc.), soil descriptions (usually according to soil science handbooks and Munsell charts), listing of seized exhibits per context, and the archaeologist’s interpretation of each layer or spit recovered in terms of its overall significance in the excavation. It is preferable to write ‘N/A’ (not applicable) against many of the usual prompts asked by standard context forms rather than leave them blank, which is an open invitation in cross-examination. No pro forma, even one dedicated to forensic work, is necessarily exactly suited to every particular job, and there needs to be a section on each which allows the archaeologist freedom to make specific observations or notes.

The rules of disclosure, however, have a tendency to limit expression of ideas or hypothesis. The UK legal system prefers evidence to be submitted in terms of black and white rather than shades of grey, and this runs counter to archaeological phrase-ology which relies heavily on relative terms such as ‘likely’, ‘probably’, ‘often’, or

‘normally’. The archaeologist is advised to take care when making observations which may indicate subjective or reflective standpoints. Like any other expert witness, the role of the forensic archaeologist is that of an independent scientist who can recognise and record ‘facts’ but who may differ in the interpretation of the implications of those

‘facts’ with other scientists. There are numerous purist and theoretical archaeological standpoints on this, but anyone wishing to pursue them in a forensic context will also have to convince a lay jury of their importance, value and applicability. In such circumstances, it is probably best to keep things simple.

The file of archaeological evidence will almost certainly be represented by a written (and signed) statement which documents, in simple narrative, the process that has been undertaken from the beginning to the end of the recovery process (see Chapter 7, Section 7.3). This will outline how the grave was dug, used, and filled in according to the archaeological evidence and will provide the jury with an objective account of events. This is the statement that will be seen in court, although all the exhibits, including records, context sheets and plans can also be produced, if necessary, by either party. The statement needs to be straightforward and simple, and cover the main elements of what happened, the timing, the processes undertaken, the reasons why the processes were undertaken, and the outcomes. It will provide the platform on which both prosecution and defence base their questioning. It is up to the two sets of barristers to try and ascertain what may, or may not, be interpreted from the evidence within that statement. The archaeologist provides the ‘facts’ and is there to answer questions as to how those ‘facts’ might be interpreted. It is not the role of the forensic archaeologist to take sides and to provide proactive theories.

Unlike ‘traditional’ archaeology, however, the archaeological reporting needs to be set within, and tied to, the wider scene of crime investigation. Scene of crime personnel and other specialists will also be producing their own reports which, for legal con-sistency, need to be dovetailed. Key elements here are, for example, the time at which work started, paused or stopped, the names of the individuals concerned (for example, the name of the pathologist and his or her time of arrival), the time at which individual items were seized, and the presence of use of machinery, tents or other activity. These points need to be recorded throughout and routinely cross-referenced. Any specific activity (for example, the lifting of the body) will be recorded separately by several individuals at the scene who will each record the time and the other personnel involved.

Like the input of any other person at the scene, the archaeological work and those carrying it out will be tightly documented within the wider scene of crime framework.

Furthermore, this may also continue well after the event, for example, if sieving of the burial soils is undertaken and further exhibits seized.

Production of the signed statement and submission of the appropriate file of exhibits (records) effectively signals the end of the archaeologist’s involvement. Only when the case comes to court, months or even years later, may he or she be involved again (see Chapter 7, Section 7.5). At that point, familiarity with the incident and the ability to answer questions about it will depend wholly on the value of the statements and reports submitted. For an archaeologist, this is an excellent test of having recorded accurately, written lucidly, and reconstructed objectively. There is no second chance.

4.6 Case studies

As in Chapter 2, a number of case studies have been listed to illustrate some of the above processes and applications of techniques. Again, there is no such thing as a typical scenario, in this case of a recovery operation, but many recoveries have features in common, and the summaries are intended to depict some of the themes involved, and the breadth of the individual difficulties concerned. As in Chapter 2, the locations and the individuals concerned have been made anonymous. Some of the details have also been changed.

Case 14 The importance of the contextual environment