About the project
Textbooks on investigation recommend a hypothesis-driven method, in which investigators consider several possible explanations for what has happened. Through investigation, one should attempt to prove that the hypotheses are false. This is known as falsification and is derived from a theory of how scientific research should be conducted. This approach is intended to ensure a broad and objective investigation and to reduce the risk of tunnel vision. At the end of the investigation, the police should be left with the hypothesis that cannot be false.
Many practitioners find it challenging to use hypotheses in this way during the course of an investigation. There are differing views in professional practice on how this should be done, and there are tensions between professional practice and theory.
This project examines how such hypotheses are used in practice and how evidence is assessed in serious violent crime cases. The project’s overarching question is how the police and the prosecuting authority can assess the body of evidence during the course of an investigation in a way that is both practically feasible and procedurally fair.
Method
The project examines the investigation of homicide, attempted homicide and abuse in close relationships. Through studies of criminal case files and standards for evidence assessment, as well as participant observation and interviews with investigators, public prosecutors and analysts, the project highlights how the police and the prosecuting authority assess evidence in different cases and at different stages of the proceedings.
Objectives
The project aims to clarify different experiences and positions, and contribute to the further development of practices related to evidence assessment.