Producing evidence that can be used in court is a central goal of criminal investigations. Forensic science focuses with considerable success on the production of pieces of evidence from specific sources. However, less is known about how a team of investigating police officers progressively produces a body of evidence during the course of a criminal investigation. This literature review uses Weickian sensemaking to analyse what is known about this process in criminal investigations into organised crime. Focusing on the criminal investigation team, collective sensemaking is used as a lens through which to place the reasoning processes used in constructing evidence in a social context. In addition to describing three constituent parts of collective sensemaking relevant for criminal investigations, six factors are identified that influence the quality of collective sensemaking. Building on these results, nine focal points are presented for analysing the sensemaking processes in a criminal investigation team, aimed at advancing knowledge about the production of evidence in criminal investigations of organised crime. Furthermore, a definition of evidence is developed that is suitable for studying sensemaking in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation.
Forensic and behavioural science are often seen as two different disciplines. However, there is a growing realization that the two disciplines should be more strongly integrated. Incorporating psychological theories on human behaviour in forensic science could help solving investigative problems, especially at the crime scene. At the crime scene it is not just about applying scientific methods to analyse traces; these traces must first be perceived and categorized as relevant. At the crime scene, the behavioural perspective of an investigative psychologist could play an important role. In this study, we examine to what extent (1) investigative psychologists detect deviant behavioural cues compared to forensic examiners when investigating a crime scene, (2) forensic examiners can find the relevant traces that can be associated with this behaviour and (3) the availability of a psychological report highlighting these behavioural cues helps forensic examiners in finding more relevant traces. To this end, a total of 14 investigative psychologists and 40 forensic examiners investigated a virtual 3D mock crime scene. The results of this study show that investigative psychologists see significantly more deviant behavioural cues than forensic examiners, and that forensic examiners who receive a psychological report on these cues recognize and collect significantly more traces that can be linked to deviant behaviour and have a high evidential value than examiners who did not receive this information. However, the study also demonstrates that behavioural information is likely to be ignored when it contradicts existing beliefs.
