Dead Reckoning: Unraveling How “Homicide” Cases Travel From Crime Scene to Court Using Qualitative Research Methods

• Author: Robin Williams,Jim Fraser,Fiona Brookman,Helen Jones
• DOI: 10.1177/1088767920907374
• Date: 01 August 2020
• Published date: 01 August 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767920907374

Homicide Studies

2020, Vol. 24(3) 283 –306

© 2020 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1088767920907374

journals.sagepub.com/home/hsx

Article

Dead Reckoning: Unraveling

How “Homicide” Cases

Travel From Crime Scene

to Court Using Qualitative

Research Methods

Fiona Brookman1, Helen Jones1,

Robin Williams2,3, and Jim Fraser4

Abstract

Drawing upon data gathered during a 4-year ethnographic study of homicide

investigation in Britain, we document the movement of 44 (suspected) homicide cases

through the criminal justice process before drawing upon two case studies to unravel

in detail how a homicide is determined and how suspects are identified, eliminated,

or charged. We suggest that the progress of homicide cases through this process

is best understood as the outcome of a set of socially organized scientific, legal,

and occupational sensemaking practices, collaboratively deployed by institutionally

authorized actors. We conclude that these practices are rendered visible only

through detailed qualitative research.

Keywords

homicide investigation, sensemaking, ethnography, qualitative research, forensic

science

Over the course of a homicide investigation, first responders, detectives, crime scene

investigators, forensic scientists, prosecutors, and other actors collect and interpret a

variety of forms of information as they seek to construct plausible accounts of who did

1University of South Wales, Pontypridd, UK

2Northumbria University, UK

3Durham University, UK

4University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

Corresponding Author:

Fiona Brookman, Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Business and Society, University of South Wales,

Treforest Campus, Pontypridd CF37 1DL, UK.

Email: fiona.brookman@southwales.ac.uk

907374HSXXXX10.1177/1088767920907374Homicide StudiesBrookman et al.

research-article2020

284 Homicide Studies 24(3)

what to whom, when, where, why, and how (Barrett, 2009; Roberts, 2018; van Oorschot,

2014). This is an essentially collaborative enterprise, which involves both cognitive and

organizational work, often over an extensive period of time (Innes, 2003).

In this article, we report on instances of this cognitive and organizational work

undertaken in 44 investigations studied in the course of a 4-year ethnographic project

exploring the use of forensic sciences and technologies (FSTs) in British homicide

investigations.1 From this data set, we draw on two case studies to follow and explore

in detail their trajectories, illustrating the complexities of sensemaking and decision-

making that took place within each of them. We suggest that whether and how homi-

cide cases progress from one stage of the criminal justice process to the next is best

understood as the outcome of a set of socially organized scientific, legal, and occupa-

tional practices deployed by authorized actors. We conclude that these sorts of prac-

tices are made most visible through detailed qualitative research.

In the sections that follow, we consider a number of empirical studies that have

informed our research, including work on the social construction of death, and death

by homicide in particular, the processes of criminal investigation, and factors that

influence and shape the investigative trajectory. We also describe the methodology and

the data that inform the present study before presenting our findings and discussing

their implications.

Homicide as a Social Construction

In his symbolic interactionist account of English murder investigations, Innes (2002)

argues that “the definition of an incident as a murder or manslaughter is part of a com-

plex constructive process” (p. 671). From the earliest moments of an investigation,

police and medical professionals begin to construct the death as a (potential) homicide

or suspicious death. These constructions are subsequently confirmed (refuted, remain

ambiguous, or undetermined) through further complex medicolegal processes (see

Timmermans, 2005). Research has shown that these earliest interpretations are crucial

in informing whether actors interpret the circumstances as suspicious, what experts

they call upon, and whether and how the body of the victim is recovered for forensic

examination (Jones, 2016).

Apart from establishing the cause of death, one of the key purposes of a medicole-

gal autopsy is to establish the mode of death. Within Britain and other Western coun-

tries, deaths are categorized into one of four modes: natural, accidental, suicide, or

homicide (Neuilly, 2011). Distinguishing between these categories involves a process

of “interpretation, explanation, evidence-gathering and decision-making” (Hicks &

Tomlinson, 2001, p. 34). Moreover, experts rely upon variable kinds of information,

evidence, or intelligence in forming their decisions. For example, forensic pathologists

often rely on medical and nonmedical background information in reaching their con-

clusions (Simon, 2018). To illustrate, Atkinson (1979) argues that suicide is a socially

(rather than naturally) constructed phenomenon, that is, certain social contexts (par-

ticular causes of death, locations, and circumstances) are interpreted as indicators of

suicide. Timmermans (2005) similarly suggests that medical professionals in Western