DOCSLIB.ORG

Pattern Recognition and Forensic Identification: the Presumption of Scientific Accuracy and Other Falsehoods

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pattern Recognition and Forensic Identification: the Presumption of Scientific Accuracy and Other Falsehoods Pattern recognition and forensic identification: The presumption of scientific accuracy and other falsehoods IR Coyle, D Field and P Wenderoth* Decision-making in forensic contexts where patterns (such as fingerprints) are compared involves processes of perception and cognition which are notoriously fallible in many circumstances. The known or potential rate of error in those scientific methods of forensic identification which have long been accepted by the courts is often higher than would generally be perceived, despite the presumption of accuracy of such techniques. In this article, the authors argue that errors arising from perceptual and cognitive errors in such forensic identification evidence are overwhelmingly due to the misuse and profound lack of understanding of basic epistemological and statistical principles. To avoid miscarriages of justice, these principles need to be understood and safeguards employed so that the legal process is not contaminated by pseudoscience. INTRODUCTION Few things can be more damning to the prospects of a defendant than the unqualified pronouncement of an authoritative expert that there is forensic evidence directly linking the accused to a crime scene. Before the First Fleet sailed into Sydney Harbour, Lord Mansfield issued the following warning, the basic thrust of which is still apposite today: The fact that an expert witness has impressive scientific qualifications does not by that fact alone make his opinion on matters of human nature and behaviour within the limits of normality any more helpful than that of the jurors themselves. But there is a danger that they may think it does.1 Forensic evidence comes in many forms. To name but a few tools of trade of forensic scientists, this may involve comparison of latent fingerprints found at the crime scene with exemplar prints either obtained pursuant to a forensic order or extant in some database; comparison of bite marks on a victim with orthodontic analysis; DNA evidence; hair and fibre matching; or other emerging techniques based on the anthropometric or biomedical characteristics of humans. Whatever their genesis, all of these techniques have one thing in common: the potential for human error. The decision that evidence found at a crime scene can be matched to a particular suspect is made by a human. While mathematical algorithms processed with computational power almost beyond comprehension may reduce to a manageable number the comparisons that need to be made, the ultimate decision is always made by a human. This startlingly simple observation has far-reaching consequences that have not been fully appreciated or accommodated by the legal system. Decision-making, whether in a forensic context or otherwise, is as much a function of the processes of the human mind as of the technology on which such decisions are founded. It is as meaningless to try to isolate the two as it is to try to determine what caused a motor vehicle accident by only considering the vehicles involved and the traffic conditions, whilst ignoring the decisions made by the drivers. Decision-making in forensic contexts, in which patterns of various types are compared, involves processes of perception and cognition. Perception and cognition are notoriously fallible in many * Ian Coyle: Visiting Professorial Fellow, Forensic Psychologist, Forensic Ergonomist and Forensic Psychopharmacologist, Bond University Centre for Forensic Excellence; Principal Consultant Safetysearch Forensic Consultants, Gold Coast, Queensland. David Field: Associate Professor of Law, Director, Bond University Centre for Forensic Excellence. Peter Wenderoth: Professor of Psychology, Macquarie University. The authors would like to thank Professor Don Thomson and the Honourable Tim Carmody for their helpful comments on the manuscript. 1 Folkes v Chadd (1782) 99 ER 589. 214 (2009) 33 Crim LJ 214 Pattern recognition and forensic identification circumstances. This has long been recognised with respect to the identification of an accused person as the perpetrator of a crime by way of eyewitness testimony, and legal safeguards have evolved to limit the consequences of error when such evidence is adduced, albeit that these safeguards are often useless.2 It is therefore curious that such safeguards are, in the main, conspicuously absent when the perceptions of forensic experts that patterns they have observed in evidence (whether they be fingerprints, bite marks, or DNA) match the characteristics of a suspect. This appears to be due in large measure to the misuse and profound lack of understanding of basic epistemological and statistical principles not only among lawyers, but also among scientists and other forensic “experts”. This has led, inter alia, to the legal doctrine of the presumption of scientific accuracy. When a scientific instrument may be said to belong to: [a] class of instruments of a scientific or technical character, which by general experience [are] known to be trustworthy, and are so notorious that the court requires no evidence to the effect that they do fall into such class, before allowing the presumption in question to operate with regard to readings made thereon,3 a court will, at common law, be entitled to take what is called “judicial notice” of its reliability. This means that the results or readings which are derived from such an instrument, may be relied on in evidence when this is relevant to the outcome of a case. This doctrine is founded on the notion that some tests are so notorious in their accuracy that it would require statistical improbability on a vast scale for them to be wrong in any particular case. Unfortunately, the same presumption of accuracy seems to have become applied to so-called scientific testing procedures which rely not upon the use of instruments, but the bare application of human judgment, albeit skilled and experienced judgment. Whatever may be presumed in law, errors in decision-making in tests undoubtedly do occur. These errors are common in the area of forensic identification, and are so ubiquitous as to require a fundamental reassessment of the way such evidence is received by the courts. A convenient place to start when considering this proposition is with biometric identification since this has the longest history. BIOMETRIC IDENTIFICATION Biometric measurement goes back to the 19th century, when Alphonse Bertillon categorised a series of measurements of the human body (forearm length, hand width etc). These were used to describe an individual. Literally tens of thousands of such measurements were collected in England, America and France and used to obtain convictions, typically of habitual criminals. Despite misgivings, the most significant of which was the report of the Royal Commission in 1898 in England, the system continued to be used. Then there occurred the case of Mr Will West. In 1903, Mr West was incarcerated in Leavenworth prison, Kansas, in the United States. His Bertillon measurements were taken and were identical, based on 15 matching points of comparison, to another inmate who had been admitted to Leavenworth two years earlier and was still there. This was the genesis of the requirement to have 16 matches or points of comparison that migrated, through a process of unscientific osmosis, to the system of fingerprint matching. Fingerprint examination replaced the Bertillon system during the early part of the 19th century. Since then, the criteria for obtaining a “match” have varied. In most of Europe, a fingerprint match requires 16 points; in Greece it is 10; and in Turkey eight points are required. In the United States and Australia, no specific criteria are used – the analyst simply forms an opinion that a latent and “exemplar” print (ie one taken from the suspect) match. There is no empirical or statistical basis for these thresholds: none whatsoever. As Thompson and Cole noted: 2 Coyle IR, Field D and Miller G, “The Blindness of the Eye-witness” (2008) 82 ALJ 471. 3 Porter v Kolodzeil [1962] VR 75 at 78. (2009) 33 Crim LJ 214 215 Coyle, Field and Wenderoth Latent Print Examiners (LPEs) have no scientific basis to estimate the probability of a random match between two impressions, and they present no statistics in connection with their testimony. If they find sufficient consistent detail they simply declare a positive identification of individualization, claiming the potential donor for the mark has been reduced to one and only one area of friction ridge skin in the world to the exclusion of all other friction ridge skin in the world.4 And so LPEs in Australia and North America simply state that the latent print matched or did not match the exemplar print and ignore the vexatious issue that they might not be correct 100% of the time when making such judgments. LPEs routinely assert that latent and exemplar prints can be matched by properly trained examiners with no realistic chance of incorrect matching (ie making a false positive error). This is a comforting thought for an accused. It is also wrong. Errors in fingerprint analysis have been known since the 1920s. Typically these have been shrugged off as being due to poor training, poor supervision or difficulties in matching poor quality latent impressions with exemplars in a database. The cases of Brandon Mayfield in the United States and Shirley McKie in Scotland have conclusively demonstrated that these arguments will not fly.5 In both of these cases, the most experienced LPEs in North America and the United Kingdom conclusively and comprehensively identified the wrong person. What processes of decision-making are involved when a forensic scientist compares latent and exemplar evidence of whatever type? The short answer is that no one knows. Because forensic scientists making decisions as to the similarity or otherwise of such evidence produce almost no documentation, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to determine, post facto, what led them to their conclusion. It seems clear from the fact that there is no standard in North American and Australia vis-à-vis the number of indicia that must match before a positive identification is called that LPEs must consider the overall pattern of the latent print as well as individual minutiae, but how this is done is not clear.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Forensic Document Examination in the Courts
    CHAPTER 9 Forensic Document Examination in the Courts Chapter Outline ELSEVIER Before 1900 .................................................................................................119 The 20th-Century Courts ...........................................................................120 The Critics ....................................................................................................122 The American Board of Forensic Document Examiners ..........................123 Forensic Document Examiners Meet Each Daubert Factor .....................123 1. Theory Tested .........................................................................................................124 2. Standards.................................................................................................................126 3. Peer Review and Publications ..........................................................................126 4. General Acceptance.............................................................................................128 5. Error Rate .................................................................................................................130 Forensic Document Examination. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-416693-6.00009-6 Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 117 Forensic Document Examination Early Court Challenges ...............................................................................131 21st-Century Courts ...................................................................................132
    [Show full text]
  • Mitochondrial DNA and Methods for Forensic Identification
    Mini Review J Forensic Sci & Criminal Inves Volume - 9 Issue 1 - May 2018 Copyright © All rights are reserved by Gazi Nurun Nahar Sultana DOI: 10.19080/JFSCI.2018.09.555755 Mitochondrial DNA and Methods for Forensic Identification Gazi Nurun Nahar Sultana*and Mohammad Zakir Sultan Centre for Advanced Research in Sciences (CARS), University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh Submission: May 24, 2018; Published: May 29, 2018 *Corresponding author: Gazi Nurun Nahar Sultana, Centre for Advanced Research in Sciences (CARS), University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh, Tel: ; Email: Abstract A growing area of forensic mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has been appreciated by forensic scientists and law enforcement agencies in many countries. Crime scene investigators, law enforcement agencies, and prosecuting attorneys have recommended that this form of testing may successfully advance the investigation and prosecution of cases with limited biological evidences, such as bones, hairs and degraded skeletal remains. Defense attorneys are also increasingly requesting testing of samples with advancement of methods that may aid in exonerating their clients. MtDNA an extra nuclear genome, has certain features that make it desirable for forensics; namely, high copy number, lack of recombination, matrilineal inheritance, heteroplasmy, expression variability, and mitotic segregation. MtDNA typing has become routine in forensic biology since mid of 1980 and is a last resort for testing highly degraded biological debris. Further, the high mutation rate of the human mitochondrial
    [Show full text]
  • Forensic Identification
    Forensic Identification Watch it online http://www.kqed.org/quest/television/view/68 Story length 3:30 minutes QUEST CallPROGRAM them Bone NOTES Detectives. SUBJECTS Call them detectives of a different sort. Investigate the world of forensic anthropology with Life Biology University of California, Santa Cruz doctoral candidate and “bone detective” Chelsey Science Health Juarez. She has developed a novel technique to help identify the remains of migrants Environment who die crossing the border between the United States and Mexico. Earth Geology Science Weather In this segment you’ll find out… Astronomy why Chelsey Juarez developed the new technique to identify the ۞ Physical Physics remains of migrant workers. Science Chemistry Engineering ۞ how teeth are prepared and examined to provide information about where we come from. CA SCIENCE STANDARDS ۞ the important role forensic anthropologists play in forensic science. Grade 7 Genetics 2. A typical cell of any TOPIC BACKGROUND organism contains genetic instructions that specify its Forensic science is the application of scientific methods and processes to the law. A forensic traits. Those traits may be scientist usually works in a lab analyzing different types of evidence and writing reports, and also modified by environmental testifies in court as an expert witness. Sometimes forensic scientists go to crime scenes to help influences. (e) reconstruct the crime and collect or preserve evidence. Forensic scientists work in a variety of settings, such as local, state and federal governments; forensic labs; police departments; Earth and Life History universities or as independent consultants. (Earth Science) 4. Evidence from rocks The field of forensic science has many branches, including forensic entomology, forensic allows us to understand toxicology, forensic pathology and forensic anthropology.
    [Show full text]
  • Skin Microbiome Analysis for Forensic Human Identification: What Do We Know So Far?
    microorganisms Review Skin Microbiome Analysis for Forensic Human Identification: What Do We Know So Far? Pamela Tozzo 1,*, Gabriella D’Angiolella 2 , Paola Brun 3, Ignazio Castagliuolo 3, Sarah Gino 4 and Luciana Caenazzo 1 1 Department of Molecular Medicine, Laboratory of Forensic Genetics, University of Padova, 35121 Padova, Italy; [email protected] 2 Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences and Public Health, University of Padova, 35121 Padova, Italy; [email protected] 3 Department of Molecular Medicine, Section of Microbiology, University of Padova, 35121 Padova, Italy; [email protected] (P.B.); [email protected] (I.C.) 4 Department of Health Sciences, University of Piemonte Orientale, 28100 Novara, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-0498272234 Received: 11 May 2020; Accepted: 8 June 2020; Published: 9 June 2020 Abstract: Microbiome research is a highly transdisciplinary field with a wide range of applications and methods for studying it, involving different computational approaches and models. The fact that different people host radically different microbiota highlights forensic perspectives in understanding what leads to this variation and what regulates it, in order to effectively use microbes as forensic evidence. This narrative review provides an overview of some of the main scientific works so far produced, focusing on the potentiality of using skin microbiome profiling for human identification in forensics. This review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The examined literature clearly ascertains that skin microbial communities, although personalized, vary systematically across body sites and time, with intrapersonal differences over time smaller than interpersonal ones, showing such a high degree of spatial and temporal variability that the degree and nature of this variability can constitute in itself an important parameter useful in distinguishing individuals from one another.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Statistical Population Genetics Methods for Forensic DNA Identification Author(S): Noah A
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: Document Title: Advanced Statistical Population Genetics Methods for Forensic DNA Identification Author(s): Noah A. Rosenberg, Ph.D. Document Number: 253932 Date Received: October 2019 Award Number: 2014-DN-BX-K015 This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Basic Research and Development in Forensic Science for Criminal Justice Purposes Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice NIJ SL # SL001082 NIJ‐2014‐3744 Award # 2014‐DN‐BX‐K015 ADVANCED STATISTICAL POPULATION GENETICS METHODS FOR FORENSIC DNA IDENTIFICATION Prepared by: Noah A. Rosenberg, PhD Principal Investigator Department of Biology Stanford University 371 Gilbert Building, Room 109 Stanford, CA 94305‐5020 Tel: 650 721 2599 Email: [email protected] Prepared on: January 10, 2019 Recipient Organization: Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Stanford University 3160 Porter Drive, Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 94304‐8445 Final Progress Report Project Period: 01/01/2015 – 12/31/2018 Signature of Submitting Official: Robert Loredo, Contract and Grant Officer 01/24/2019 This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Remains and Identification
    Human remains and identification HUMAN REMAINS AND VIOLENCE Human remains and identification Human remains Human remains and identification presents a pioneering investigation into the practices and methodologies used in the search for and and identification exhumation of dead bodies resulting from mass violence. Previously absent from forensic debate, social scientists and historians here Mass violence, genocide, confront historical and contemporary exhumations with the application of social context to create an innovative and interdisciplinary dialogue. and the ‘forensic turn’ Never before has a single volume examined the context of motivations and interests behind these pursuits, each chapter enlightening the Edited by ÉLISABETH ANSTETT political, social, and legal aspects of mass crime and its aftermaths. and JEAN-MARC DREYFUS The book argues that the emergence of new technologies to facilitate the identification of dead bodies has led to a ‘forensic turn’, normalizing exhumations as a method of dealing with human remains en masse. However, are these exhumations always made for legitimate reasons? And what can we learn about societies from the way in which they deal with this consequence of mass violence? Multidisciplinary in scope, this book presents a ground-breaking selection of international case studies, including the identification of corpses by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the resurfacing ANSTETTand of human remains from the Gulag and the sites of Jewish massacres from the Holocaust. Human remains
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting the Challenges of the Daubert Trilogy: Refining and Redefining the Reliability of Orf Ensic Evidence
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 43 Issue 2 Daubert, Innocence, and the Future of Forensic Science Winter 2007 Meeting the Challenges of the Daubert Trilogy: Refining and Redefining the Reliability of orF ensic Evidence Mara L. Merlino Victoria Springer Jan Seaman Kelly Derek Hammond Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Mara L. Merlino, Victoria Springer, Jan S. Kelly, & Derek Hammond, Meeting the Challenges of the Daubert Trilogy: Refining and Redefining the Reliability ofor F ensic Evidence, 43 Tulsa L. Rev. 417 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol43/iss2/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Merlino et al.: Meeting the Challenges of the Daubert Trilogy: Refining and Redef MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF THE DAUBERT TRILOGY: REFINING AND REDEFINING THE RELIABILITY OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE Mara L. Merlino,* Victoria Sprnger *Jan Seaman Kell Derek Hammond, Eric Sahota, & Lori Haines I. INTRODUCTION Daubert1 and its progeny, General Electric Co. v. Joiner2 and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,3 established new guidelines and procedures for determining the evidentiary reliability of expert testimony. Following the Daubert trilogy, the admissibility of expert testimony is presumably based not only on an analysis of the evidence's legal merits and Frye's general acceptance standard,4 but also on the judicial analysis of the qualifications of the expert, the methods by which the expert arrives at his or her 5 conclusions, and even the conclusions themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Forensic Methods of Identifying Corpses with Unknown Identity
    Forensic Methods of Identifying Corpses with Unknown Identity Ovidiu Andrei Hamburda Faculty of “Economic Sciences and Public Administration," Law Specialization, University “Ștefan cel Mare,” Romania Master in Criminal Sciences at "Dimitrie Cantemir" Christian University of Bucharest, [email protected] ABSTRACT: Finding the truth is the most difficult process, especially in a society that reveals itself as a high- speed field, whose passengers combine good and evil, honor and dishonesty, respect for the law and crime. Identification of dead bodies is one of the most common but complicated activities that the magistrate, criminal investigation dead bodies, criminalist or forensic doctor encounters, because compared to the living people who appreciate both the static signs, the dynamic signs and the functional features noted by different gestures, attitudes, etc. only the static forms and the personal objects on them or the clothing are appreciated in the case of dead bodies. Most procedures claim certain data and information to be compared, such as DNA, fingerprints, dentition, etc., but if they do not exist, comparison with the rest of the population is impossible. To identify a person, the forensic research bodies also found other methods, such as the over-projection method, the reconstruction of the skull physiognomy, the skeletal identification, dental or dental identification. KEYWORDS: clothes, dead bodies, dentition, DNA, research, skeleton, unknown Introduction In the society where we living, personal and national security is very easy to attack, hence the need for more stringent and trustworthy measures to identify and secure our identity. Although in the book of Alexander Dumas - Martin Guerre, identity was established by cunning and confession, in today's world, a simple comparison of DNA would solve the problem, beyond any reasonable uncertainty (Thompson and Black 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • 'Wild' from Hatchery-Raised Red Drum, Sciaenops O
    Forensic Science International 156 (2006) 9–15 www.elsevier.com/locate/forsciint Application of hypervariable genetic markers to forensic identification of ‘wild’ from hatchery-raised red drum, Sciaenops ocellatus M.A. Renshaw a, E. Saillant a, R.E. Broughton b, J.R. Gold a,* a Center for Biosystematics and Biodiversity, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, TX 77843-2258, USA b Oklahoma Biological Survey and Department of Zoology, University of Oklahoma, 111 E. Chesapeake Street, Norman, Oklahoma, OK 73019, USA Received 31 December 2004; received in revised form 2 May 2005; accepted 3 May 2005 Abstract Forensic identification of ‘wild’ versus hatchery-produced (cultured) red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), an economically important marine fish in the southern United States, was assessed using hypervariable nuclear-encoded microsatellites and sequences of mitochondrial DNA. Both genotype exclusion and likelihood-ratio tests successfully identified ‘wild’ and ‘cultured’ individuals within requisite error bounds and within the context of complete parental sampling. Of the two, genotype exclusion was more effective, producing satisfactory results with fewer microsatellites and larger allowable error rates. Assignment tests proved ineffective, most likely because of the low level of genetic divergence between the sampled populations. An optimal, minimum set of ten markers that will reduce potential genotyping costs is identified. Results of the study should allay concerns regarding identification of ‘wild’-caught fish sold illegally. # 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Microsatellites; Forensic genetics; ‘Wild’ versus hatchery-raised fish The existence of a legal market for wildlife meat and/or in population abundance led to rather extreme fishing restric- parts raises the issue of eventual sale of a legal species tions in most U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 4154 Forensic Identification of Human Remains
    FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION OF HUMAN REMAINS IN BRIEF Ed Ou/ICRCEd INTRODUCTION The identification of human remains is important When a missing person is believed to be dead, for both legal and humanitarian reasons. This two complementary lines of investigation must document provides a brief overview for non- be pursued: experts of the scientific process by which • tracing the whereabouts of that person once human remains are identified. It does not set out he or she has been reported missing by his or guidelines or standard operating procedures her family or other reliable sources for carrying out forensic investigations, and • forensic identification of human remains. must not be understood as doing so. The ICRC recommends the use of standardized policies The forensic identification of human remains and procedures in all contexts, which should be is a legal determination (sealed by the developed by the pertinent authorities (courts, jurisdictional authority’s signature on a death investigators, medico-legal institutes, etc.). certificate) based on the scientific matching of information on missing persons with unidentified human remains. Identification Forensic identification of human requires a holistic approach that takes into remains generally involves three main consideration all available scientific and stages of investigation: contextual evidence. Each line of evidence • background research must be weighed and treated on its merits. The • recovery of remains scale of the identification project must also • laboratory analysis and reconciliation. be considered and the identification strategy adjusted accordingly. 2 Ed Ou/ICRCEd BACKGROUND RESEARCH Preliminary investigation is needed to Background research can draw from locate, assess, collate and organize all various sources, such as interviews or available information on missing persons written records.
    [Show full text]
  • Forensic Face Recognition: a Survey
    Forensic Face Recognition: A Survey Tauseef Ali, Raymond Veldhuis, Luuk Spreeuwers Signals and Systems Group, FEMCS, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands Abstract Beside a few papers which focus on the forensic aspects of automatic face recognition, there is not much published about it in contrast to the literature on developing new techniques and methodologies for biometric face recognition. In this report, we review forensic facial identification which is the forensic experts‟ way of manual facial comparison. Then we review famous works in the domain of forensic face recognition. Some of these papers describe general trends in forensics [1], guidelines for manual forensic facial comparison and training of face examiners who will be required to verify the outcome of automatic forensic face recognition system [2]. Some proposes theoretical framework for application of face recognition technology in forensics [3] and automatic forensic facial comparison [4, 5]. Bayesian framework is discussed in detail and it is elaborated how it can be adapted to forensic face recognition. Several issues related with court admissibility and reliability of system are also discussed. Until now, there is no operational system available which automatically compare image of a suspect with mugshot database and provide result usable in court. The fact that biometric face recognition can in most cases be used for forensic purpose is true but the issues related to integration of technology with legal system of court still remain to be solved. There is a great need for research which is multi- disciplinary in nature and which will integrate the face recognition technology with existing legal systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Body Fluid Analysis by Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy for Forensic Applications Author(S): Lawrence D
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: Document Title: Body Fluid Analysis by Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy for Forensic Applications Author(s): Lawrence D. Ziegler Document Number: 251916 Date Received: July 2018 Award Number: 2014-DN-BX-K021 This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference Service. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Final Summary Overview Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice Grant Number: 2014-DN-BX-K021 Title: Body fluid analysis by surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy for forensic applications PI: Lawrence D. Ziegler, Professor of Chemistry, Boston University [email protected] Executive summary: Surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy, combined with statistical analyses, provides rapid (~minutes) detection and identification of trace amounts of blood, semen, vaginal fluid and saliva and their mixtures. Donor variability is less than the difference between body fluid signatures. The signatures are robust over time (> months) and the molecular components of the body fluid spectra are identified. Trace blood stains can be identified following luminol based location protocols and distinguished from household agents. Animal blood species can also be identified and blood detection sensitivities exceed existing standard methodologies. This nondestructive, portable platform uses minimal sample material amounts allowing for subsequent additional tests of suspected body fluid stains.
    [Show full text]