Running Head: The Enrique Camarena Case 1
Running Head: The Enrique Camarena Case 1
Scientific theories and principles have long been involved in processing evidence in a
criminal case. In forensic investigations, scientific principles and theories are integrated in every
procedure taken concerning qualifying, collecting, and processing any potential evidence.
Forensic experts may be skilled at doing all these, but may find it hard to come with a
completely conclusive evidence when sources of potential evidence are altered or, in worse
cases, ruined. Therefore, it is important to consider proper chain of custody in criminal cases,
which ensures law enforcers and forensic experts to work together on the processing of potential
evidence for a speedy and accurate case resolution. More importantly, securing the crime scene,
especially the original place where crime exactly happened, is very much important for accurate
when pieces of potential evidence are hard to find and the only available material evidence to
analyze apparently do not characterize the original components of the crime scene. Smears of
paint, blood, soil, and many other possible traces of forensic evidence may be found in the
bodies of victims but material evidence should significantly match the materials found in the
place where the crime happened. Only then can more logical conclusions be made giving a
higher probability of solving the case. Problem occurs then when the original condition of crime
scene is altered even before forensic experts come to search the place for evidence.
Camarena’s dead body was found in the Bravo ranch in a rural area in Mexico. Enrique
Camarena, a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) special agent, was assigned in the agency’s
Guadalajara office in Mexico. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) team with forensic experts
THE ENRIQUE CAMARENA CASE 3
was sent to conduct investigation and search for potential traces of evidence. Initially, the
forensic team collected known samples of potential evidence from the dead bodies. Samples of
hair and soil from clothes and bodies were taken and studied in the lab. Traces of material
samples, particularly hair and fiber, blood, and fingerprints were searched in a suspected
transport vehicle. Pathologists examined his body and found out that Camarena could have been
dead about a month before the day his dead body was found. Bravo ranch, where his dead body
was found, was investigated. Examination of his body suggested that Camarena could have been
tortured before he was killed. Investigation of the suspected vehicle led to the idea that Camarena
was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered elsewhere. The suspected car was found hidden in a
building in Guadalajara where Camarena was tortured and murdered. Involvement of the corrupt
official was found upon investigation of the suspected car, which belonged to a Mexican official
and was used for dealership. Investigators, however, were not able to search the house until the
officials had altered and removed obvious evidence. It was then found out that the kidnapping
was ordered by the drug lord backed by the corrupt Mexican officials (Malon, 1989).
The different pieces of forensic evidence in this case: known samples of soil, hair, and
fingerprints collected from the dead body helped in its resolution upon processing the suspected
car for the same possible trace evidence, though barely matched what were found inside the
house where Camarena was tortured and killed. Both material and human forensic evidence were
useful in solving the puzzle and made up the story of what exactly happened to Camarena. This
only shows the important role forensic science plays in crime resolution that is almost impossible
to solve if crime resolution solely relies on testimonies made by witnesses. On the other hand,
THE ENRIQUE CAMARENA CASE 4
important lessons in forensic science could be derived from this case. There were obvious
mistakes made in the case that could have been improved. First of all, the crime scene was never
secured. The body was found in a ranch, which was never secured, that could have altered the
evidence. The time frame between the time the dead body was found and the time of torture and
actual killing was long enough for the body to decay and could possibly have lost material
evidence. Also, the house where the victim was allegedly tortured and murdered was found after
it had been painted until all obvious evidence were altered and ruined. Investigators could have
done better in this case. Time between evidence search and processing is relevant for various
things can happen and ruin potential evidence. This, again, reminds of proper chain of custody
and processing of evidence, and securing the crime scene the soonest possible time.
On the other hand, Wilkinson (2013) reported that Rafael Caro Quintero, one of the
convicted suspects of the Camarena killing case, was released and his conviction was voided. An
appeals tribunal ruled the conviction by Federal charges was improper as it should have been in
state court. Wilkinson (2013) also added that the drug traffikers in Mexico had momentary lie
low after the death of Camarena and that the case had adversely affected relation between
Mexico and the United States. As reported, the United States had not made it clear whether or
Conclusion
The Camarena case had proven the value of forensic investigation in resolving criminal
cases that seem to be almost impossible to solve until analysis of material and human samples is
made. Indeed, scientific theories and princples are useful in criminal investigations. Similarly,
forensic analysis relies on scientific procedure that require careful handling and processing of
THE ENRIQUE CAMARENA CASE 5
potential forensic evidence. Time in between steps taken is also relevant as other things can
happen that may ruin pieces of evidence, which may eventually contribute to a lengthy
investigation process. Law enforcers and forensic experts can work together for speedy criminal
case resolution. Law enforcers can make the crime scene secure, such as keeping it free from
access so as not to alter existing evidence. When properly secured and handled, forensic experts
can do search, collection, and processing of potential evidence, analyzing each to see its
relevance to the case. Observing proper chain of custody is therefore important to keep every
potential evidence at its original state as it was in the orginal crime scene and make it admissible
in court.
THE ENRIQUE CAMARENA CASE 6
References
Malone, M. P. (1989, September). The Enrique Camarena case – A forensic nightmare. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, 58(9), 1-6. Retrieved from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/121533NCJRS.pdf
Wilkinson, T. (2013). DEA agent 'Kiki' Camarena's Mexico slaying called a game changer. LA
Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/09/world/la-fg-wn-dea-agent-
killing-a-game-changer-20130809