CCTV footage invaluable in crime fight – Top Cop

Jun 24, 2019 News

---

 

Police investigators across the globe are using footage from surveillance cameras to solve crimes. It is no different in Guyana, which now has the ability to collect and analyse Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) footage.
The Guyana Police Force (GPF) via its Facebook page recently noted that video footage has been helping to solve many crimes.
“Cameras Don’t Lie,” the Force noted, while urging citizens who have cameras at their homes or business to share footage that may have captured a crime. The police urged, “Preserve the footage and allow the police to extract it so it can be used as evidence.”
Commenting in this regard, Commissioner of Police Leslie James said, “We all have a role to play in combating crimes in Guyana. Sometimes the only evidence available at crime scenes is surveillance cameras. If you have a surveillance camera at your home or at work, it can be invaluable to our investigators. We need your help to provide the footage and to preserve the crime scene.”

The GPF is now in a better position to analyse forensic evidence thanks to funding from the United States Department of State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement for the Strengthening of the Criminal Justice System project, which was implemented by the Justice Education Society (JES) of British Colombia.
According to the police force, “The project contributes towards this goal in two areas: by improving the investigation of crime scenes, case preparation, and trial advocacy, and ensuring media and public support for justice system reform; and by developing the capacity of the Guyanese criminal justice system to collect and analyse CCTV camera digital evidence recorded at a crime scene.
Before JES projects, the GPF said it collected video evidence, but did not have the necessary technology or specialised training to analyse it. JES provided forensic video analysis (FVA) equipment and training to the police, public prosecutors and magistrates.
At the same time, JES created public service announcements to make sure that the public understands the value of forensic video and is willing to cooperate with the police. These efforts came together in a successful prosecution of an armed robbery in Linden.
Police said that its detectives retrieved the video and sent it to the forensic video analysis (FVA) unit for processing.
“There, forensic video analysts isolated close-up images of the suspects’ faces and shared it with investigators to aid in identification. As police officers worked closely together on the investigation, one of them recognized the man in the video…”
Police say that the results of the social media search supported this preliminary identification as social media users were also able to name the robber and passed the information to the police. With these details, the police ranks moved quickly to make an arrest.
The GPF pointed out, “But arresting the suspect was only the beginning of the process. The police had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person arrested was the same person who was captured on video committing the crime. That is where forensic video analysts put their technical skills to the test. They isolated images of the suspect’s tattoos from the video and overlaid them for comparison with the photos of the suspect’s tattoos that the police made during the arrest.”
The evidence was presented in court by FVA Gary Jordan who presented his comparative analysis. “The evidence was so compelling that the man’s defence lawyer advised him to change his plea to guilty,” the GPF noted.
He was sentenced to four years in prison.
LEAPS AND BOUNDS
In a report titled Impacts of Strengthening the Guyanese Criminal Justice System Project, JES, which outlined the outcome of several projects undertaken, reported that the Guyana Police Force was moving by “leaps and bounds” to use video evidence in crime fighting.
According to JES, “For the magistrates, forensic video has high demonstrative value and aids in objective reconstruction of events under consideration.”
Magistrate Rushelle Liverpool, who sits at the Leonora Magistrate’s Court, had disclosed to JES, “Video evidence is the best evidence. Its purpose is not just to identify perpetrators, but it can be used to help the courts in understanding how an incident happened, or the layout of the crime scene. It can help (the court) in identifying the persons who were present, who might be in court giving evidence and testifying to the fact that they were present and observed an incident.”
Magistrate Liverpool continued, “Video evidence will allow the public to be more confident in the court’s decision because it would be understood that the decision would have been arrived at because of video evidence—unbiased, neutral evidence—and not the courts’ ability to assess a witness’ viva voce evidence (given orally).”

---

---