Types of Evidence
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 OHHS Forensics Snow Packet Name ________________________________ Date ____________ Page 1- Day 1 Types of Evidence OBJECTIVE: S.HS.FS.2 Distinguish between types of evidence: testimonial, physical: individual and class: quantitative, qualitative. Two basic types of evidence exist: testimonial and physical (class or individual). • Testimonial Evidence is a statement made under oath; also known as direct evidence or prima facie evidence. This evidence includes witness testimony and, when gathered by law enforcement or crime scene investigators, can be used to build a timeline of events or confirm a suspect’s whereabouts. • Physical Evidence is any object or item that establishes that a crime has been committed or establishes a link between a crime and its perpetrator or crime and its victim. Examples of physical evidence include a document, a hair, fibers, fingerprints, soil, and blood. Class Characteristics are properties of physical evidence that can be associated only with a group and never with a single source. If evidence is determined to possess class characteristics it may serve as a mechanism to reduce the number of suspects, but it cannot be directly connected to one person or source. Examples of class evidence include blood type, fibers, and paint. Individual Characteristics are properties of physical evidence that can be attributed to a common source with a high degree of certainty. Examples of individual evidence include anything that contains nuclear DNA, toolmarks, and fingerprints. Types of Evidence Examples: Examples: Examples: 2 OHHS Forensics Snow Packet Name ___________________________________ Date ______________ Page 2- Day 1 Physical Evidence Description Examples Class Individual Which type of evidence is more reliable: testimonial or physical? Explain why and provide an example. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Classify each piece of evidence as testimonial or physical: Evidence Classification Evidence Classification Expert testimony by a A ripped blanket found Chemist in a drug case in the victim’s garage DNA collected from Fiber evidence the crime scene collected from a trunk A description of a car Written description of by an onlooker perpetration by victim A knife found in a A gum wrapper found suspect’s vehicle in a wooded area Classify each piece of physical evidence as class or individual and provide an explanation. Evidence Classification Explanation A piece from a paper cut into four equal pieces. A piece of from a paper ripped jaggedly in to four pieces. A broken piece of glass from a window found a suspect’s car A footprint left by a brand new pair of Converse All Stars. A ransom note ripped from a notebook. Nuclear DNA A match taken from a box of matches. The fingerprint of a kidnapper left at the scene of the crime. Which is more valuable in court: class or individual evidence? Explain why and provide an example. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 3 OHHS Forensics Snow Packet Name ___________________________________ Date ______________ Page 3- Day 2 Locard’s Exchange Principle I OBJECTIVE: S.HS.FS.3 Analyze modes of transfer and factors affecting persistence of evidence (Locard’s Exchange Principle): indirect, direct Every Contact Leaves A Trace • Edmond Locard (1877-1966) Locard was the founder of the Institute of Criminalistics at the University of Lyon in Lyon, France. The Institute of Criminalistics is considered to be the flagship university in the field of forensic science. He is most prominently remembered for his cross-transfer principle known as Locard’s Exchange Principle, which states that whenever two pieces of evidence come into contact with each other, there is always an exchange of materials. • Trace Evidence is evidence from a transfer of material, a very small piece of evidence left at a crime scene that may be used to identify or link a suspect to a crime. The value of trace evidence was first recognized by Edmond Locard. Examples of trace evidence include paint, explosive debris, glass, dust and dirt, gunshot residue, blood, and other bodily fluids. Looking at Locard’s Exchange Principle in Action Imagine you have 2 children and a cat. You run out to take care of some errands that include stopping at a furniture store, the laundromat, and the house of a friend who has one child and a dog. What kinds of things might you leave behind? What kinds of things might you pick up from each place? If someone robbed your friend’s house that evening while your friend was away, they could place you at the scene of the crime. How could you defend yourself to the police? 4 OHHS Forensics Snow Packet Name ___________________________________ Date ______________ Page 4- Day 2 Give examples of trace evidence and describe how the evidence could be left at a crime scene. Example How could it be left at a crime scene? Snow Day Lab: Locard’s Exchange Principle and Trace Evidence Instructions: You will need to select a new shirt or one that has been worn little and just washed and dried. Inspect the shirt carefully before putting it on for ‘trace evidence’ and remove what you can. Wear the shirt for at least four hours and keep track of your activities during this time. After you take the shirt off, inspect it under a bright light. List anything you find on your shirt below (hairs, fibers, etc.) and how you think those pieces of ‘evidence’ got on there. ‘Evidence’ found on shirt How did the evidence get on the shirt? Explain how the snow day lab demonstrates Locard’s Exchange Principle and the value of trace evidence. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 5 OHHS Forensics Snow Packet Name ___________________________________ Date ______________ Page 5- Day 3 Locard’s Exchange Principle II OBJECTIVE: S.HS.FS.3 Analyze modes of transfer and factors affecting persistence of evidence (Locard’s Exchange Principle): indirect, direct Your DNA goes places you have never been: What does this mean for forensic scientists interpreting DNA found at a crime scene? During a criminal investigation, items are commonly examined for DNA to try to identify a potential suspect. But is this DNA really from someone involved in the crime or has it got there through innocent means? In recent years, the sensitivity of DNA profiling technology used by forensic casework laboratories has increased dramatically. This means that we can now detect very small traces of DNA. Such DNA is commonly referred to as ‘touch DNA’, but since touching is not the only way to leave DNA, the term ‘trace DNA’ is more appropriate. Although TV shows would have us believe that the DNA always comes from the culprit, in reality, there are various ways DNA can be left on an item (Fig. 2a), many of which may have nothing to do with the crime in question. DNA can be left on surfaces directly through physical contact, such as handling a knife or wearing a jumper, or through activities, such as speaking and coughing. DNA can also be transferred indirectly (Fig. 2b). Scientific research has shown that DNA from a person can end up on items that they have never touched, and in some situations, in a room they have never been to. Whilst it is known that such transfers can occur, scientific research is only just starting to understand the effect indirect transfer has on the interpretation of DNA from a crime scene. It is our view that, under many casework situations, there is currently insufficient published research to support the formation of an opinion on how DNA came to be on a surface of interest. Let us take so-called ‘wearer DNA’ as an example. In casework, items of clothing are routinely examined with the view of recovering DNA from the wearer of those clothes (Fig. 1). However, with only a handful of research papers published on this subject, it is unclear whether the DNA recovered comes from the regular wearer of the clothing, the most recent wearer (i.e. the wearer at the time the crime) or indirect transfer events. This issue is further complicated by the finding of DNA mixtures, that is, DNA from more than one person. Forensic scientists are therefore left with the question: ‘Which DNA profile was deposited at the time of the crime and how did it get there?’ Fig. 2. Trace DNA can be transferred to a surface at a crime scene through a variety of ways. (a) Transfer includes the deposit of dilute body fluids (e.g. blood that is so dilute we cannot detect it as blood), direct contact, activities in the vicinity of the surface, and indirect transfer. (b) Indirect transfer occurs when DNA from a person is transferred to a surface via an intermediate person or object, or indeed people or objects. 6 OHHS Forensics Snow Packet Name ___________________________________ Date ______________ Page 6- Day 3 When a forensic scientist addresses this question for the court, it is imperative that their testimony is derived from empirical data and not solely a personal opinion. Such empirical data should ideally be published so that the data are subjected to the scientific peer review process. This process is designed to ensure that only rigorously conducted research is made available to the scientific community. Publication therefore enables only good quality data to be relied upon by forensic scientists when they interpret evidence. Despite the lack of published research, scientists working for providers of forensic science to the police in the UK and Ireland argue that a reliable dataset is available for the interpretation of ‘wearer DNA’. Their claim comes from their reliance on those few published papers, unpublished data and their casework experience. There are serious issues with relying on unpublished data, as the data have not undergone peer- review, nor has the research been shared with the scientific community.