NCJ Number
185327
Journal
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin Volume: 69 Issue: 9 Dated: September 2000 Pages: 1-5
Date Published
September 2000
Length
5 pages
Annotation
This article challenges myths of underwater recovery operations pertinent to the diver recovery team, submerged evidence, accident assumptions, and geographic retrieval.
Abstract
Regarding the diver recovery team, one myth is that the team's ultimate objective is to recover a submerged item; convicting criminals of their crimes is the true objective of a dive recovery team. A myth about the composition of the team is that it is composed of a primary diver, safety diver, line tender, on-scene commander, and others involved solely in the recovery process. Given that the ultimate objective is a conviction of the offender, then the first responders, investigators, crime laboratory personnel, and prosecutors are diver recovery team players as well. A myth regarding submerged evidence is that all submerged evidence is bereft of forensic value; however, water is a preservative for forensic evidence, which becomes tainted only as a result of the recovery method used. A myth regarding firearm recovery is that all submerged firearms are bereft of forensic value; however, they may retain fingerprints, fibers, and evidence stored in the barrel from contact wounds. A myth about vehicle recovery is that submerged vehicles are simply stolen. Most investigators, however, realize that they should consider all stolen submerged vehicles as crime vehicles (i.e., stolen for use in the commission of another crime). The challenged myths associated with accidents are that all drownings are presumed accidents and all air disasters are presumed accidents. A challenged myth associated with geographic retrieval is that it is not necessary or possible to locate submerged items geographically. 11 notes