Nine Fatal Mistakes

• 0

Mistakes, as small as they may seem, can disrupt a whole murder investigation. Sometimes, a simple lack of cell-phone charger prevents investigators from having quick access to the phone agendas and call history of the victims. A broken device at the forensic medical institute makes judgements more difficult to be issued. The mere lack of initiative prevents policemen from knowing if the victim survived or not an assault. Here are nine situations that reporters from Gazeta do Povo came across while analyzing the inquiries of one thousand manslaughters that took place between 2010 and 2013 in the city of Curitiba.

1-Reporters find out earlierNormally, the news of a murder quickly reaches the homicide investigation unit. The Communication Center of Operation of the Civil Police is responsible for sending investigators and officers to the crime scenes. However, there are cases in which the information reached the police through the press. On February 28th 2010, according to a report made by investigators (document number 2.301/11), the police found out through a radio reporter that a murder had occurred in the Tatuquara neighborhood. The crime has not yet been solved.

2- The Military Police leftMilitary Police officers are first to reach the crime scenes so as to preserve the area and safeguard evidence. They are followed by the members of the homicide units and the criminal experts. However, the crime scene is not always preserved in a very appropriate way. On March 26th 2011, the early departure of the members of the MP made it impossible for the investigators to attend another murder in the Sitio Cercado neighborhood, according to an account found in the legal document number 24.757/11. They were forced to wait for the members of the forensic medical institute to arrive at the crime scene where they found a "great concentration of people".

3- Without cell-phone chargersThe inquiries show that there is a lack of equipment that prevents policemen from working. While investigating on a death that occurred on March 30th 2011, for example, the police seized the cell-phone of the victim. They reported that its battery was flat and failed to recharge it. "We believe that only the criminal experts will be able to solve this problem", they wrote in the inquiry. Three months later, the DH asked the criminal experts to send them the analysis of the cellular. The analysis was done on December 13th 2011.

4- Broken deviceThe lack of infrastructure of the Scientific Police is also obvious. Upon testing the blood of a youngster who died on February 10th 2010, laboratory officials informed in the inquiry 7.103/10 that it did not manage to carry out the test to detect marijuana. The equipment was not working. While investing a death that took place on February 29th 2012, the police requested the help of criminal experts to analyze a computer. Their answer, found in the legal document number 1,972/13, was that they could not come up with a deadline to solve the problem, as there was only one license for this kind of software and 2,500 pending solicitations.

5-Harmful delaysWhen witnesses happen to speak out, policemen do not always do their job very quickly. In the inquiry number 10.759/10, the homicide unit took two years to summon three individuals, who, according to the suspect, had been involved in the crime. In the case number 2.718/10, while investigating the death of a youngster found dead in a car on March 16th 2010, the police requested the speed radar history of the vehicle. The request was officially made on June 27th 2012. Unfortunately, radar footage only remains archived for six months.

6- Where did the crime occur?When the victim dies after being taken to hospital, the police struggles to identify where the murder took place. The investigation of the death of a sixteen-year-old teenager on February 15th 2010, went through the procedure during six years lacking this information, as shown in inquiry number 2.803/10. The Siate (the Firefighters of the State of Paraná) could have provided the information as it sent rescuers to assist the victim but the homicide unit only contacted the Siate on April 10th 2013 – more than three years after the murder. The answer has not been provided until the beginning of May 2013.

7- Surviving deadOn January 12th 2010, in the CIC neighborhood, a thirty-seven-year old apprentice builder was shot inside his house and taken to hospital. Nobody knows who shot him. Fourteen months later, in March 2011, a new police chief took up the case 1.980/11 and found out that the police had never checked if the victim had survived the assault. The coroner sent a squad to check the information but the police had no vehicle to do so. More than two months later, the police discovered that the apprentice builder had died a few days after the attack. The case was filed without solution.

8- Lack of communicationOfficers from the 11th police district took one year to discover that the suspect of a homicide had already been jailed. They were investigating a death that occurred on March 14th 2010, and which occurrence had been known since April 8th 2010. Because of this, the homicide unit passed the case number 4.732/10 on to the district officers. Upon visiting the suspect’s residence in May 2012, the investigators found out that the man had already been jailed at the Central Penitentiary for a year. The suspect only went through interrogation on June 5th 2012.

9- Simultaneous workDespite the large number of cases to solve, different police units have already worked simultaneously on the same murder case. police chiefs opened two distinct inquiries to investigate the same death. The murder of a youth that took place on March 8th 2011 in the Prado Velho neighborhood, for instance, was investigated in two different inquiries. In one of the inquiries (number 28.176/11) set up on July 20th 2011, the victim was registered with his nickname. In another one opened on August 23rd, the victim was registered with his full name.