In particular, the paper considers three data sets – paper forms, labelled buttons and speech recognition data – and investigates how comparative study of these found at a crime scene can assist in the preparation of the irrefutable warrant. It uses a methodology based on the advice of experts and one that is not very singular in itself. It finds that such methodology, though not exclusive to the paper, is sufficient basis for establishing the three data sets – paper forms, labelled buttons and speech recognition data – as reliable and integral enough to subsequently establish an irrefutable warrant. It is true that it is not always to be expected that these data sets alone can be the sole basis for such warrants but it is firmly established that these data sets, in association with other data sets found on the crime scene, if comprehensive enough, can certainly assist most admirably in establishing an irrefutable warrant, establishing an irrefutable basis for the exhibits and the subsequent claim.
This paper investigates how evidence collected from a crime scene can be successfully collated to point at the criminal/criminals and get positive conviction where such convection is justified under existing laws. When an incident that can be considered as criminal under existing laws is reported an investigation proceeds in which an examination of the crime scene commences and includes such diverse activities as selection, collection and analysis of evidence and this evidence is subsequently related to person/persons in such a manner that they stand accused of the aforementioned criminal act. Essentially, a claim is made based on the data (evidence) that argumentatively proposes to prosecute the person/persons that stand accused by it (Baber et al, 2006). During crime scene investigations, crime scene investigators collect data (also known as exhibits in legal parlance) in an ideally objective and unbiased manner. In an adversarial legal system where defendant parties contend claims brought by prosecutors vigorously it is highly essential that such data be of high integrity and reliability if the claim is expected to fructify into a conviction (Baber et al, 2006). This integrity and reliability of data is technically termed as warrant and if there is any serious doubt over the warrant there is subsequently serious doubt over the legitimacy of either the data or the claim, both of which can be called into question on the basis of a dubious warrant (Baber et al, 2006). In the adversarial legal system, the defendant parties will strive to disprove the warrant in three manners:
1. discredit the manner in which the exhibit was collected or analysed (point doubt at the warrant).
2. seek discredit over the very nature of the exhibit (point doubt at the data). and
3. seek discredit over the interpretation presented (point doubt at the claim). (Baber et al, 2006)
Thus, it is essential that the warrant be absolutely foolproof so that none of these