Cover Page

Forensic Science Education and Training

A Tool-kit for Lecturers and Practitioner Trainers




Edited by

Anna Williams

School of Applied Sciences, University of Huddersfield, UK

John P. Cassella

Department of Forensic Science and Crime Science, Staffordshire University, UK

Peter D.Maskell

School of Science, Engineering and Technology, Abertay University, UK









Wiley Logo

This book is dedicated to Dave Rogers who sadly passed away before the publication and never got to see the fruits of his efforts.

List of Contributors

Luke Bracegirdle
School of Physical Sciences and Geography
Keele University, Keele
Staffordshire, UK

Graham Braithwaite
Cranfield University
Shrivenham
Swindon, UK

Sue Carney
Ethos Forensics
Manchester, UK and
University of Central Lancashire, UK

John P. Cassella
Staffordshire University
Department of Forensic Science and Crime Science
Faculty of Computing
Engineering and Science
Science Centre
Stoke on Trent, UK

Peter Cross
University of Central Lancashire
Preston, UK

Claire Gwinnett
Staffordshire University
Department of Forensic Science and Crime Science
Faculty of Computing
Engineering and Science
Science Centre
Stoke on Trent, UK

Christopher Hargreaves
Cranfield University
College Road, Cranfield
Bedfordshire, UK

Karl Harrison
Cranfield University
Cranfield Forensic Institute
College Road, Cranfield
Bedfordshire, UK

Benjamin J. Jones
Abertay University
Dundee, UK

Janice Kennedy
University of West Scotland
School of Science and Sport
Hamilton Campus
Hamilton, UK

Peter D. Maskell
Abertay University
School of Science
Engineering and Technology
Dundee, UK

Colleen Morgan
University of York
Centre for Digital Heritage Research
King's Manor
York, UK

Anna-Maria Muller
Swindon
Wiltshire
UK

Jackie A. Potter
School of Physical Sciences and Geography
Keele University, Keele
Staffordshire, UK

Richard D. Price
Faculty of Computing
Engineering and Science
University of South Wales, UK

Jamie K. Pringle
School of Physical Sciences and Geography
Keele University, Keele
Staffordshire, UK

David Rogers1
Staffordshire University
Department of Forensic Science and Crime Science
Faculty of Computing
Engineering and Science
Science Centre
Stoke on Trent, UK

Mark Roycroft
University of East London
University Way
London, UK

Luke Taylor
University of Kent
Canterbury, UK

Kris Thomson
Anatomage
San Jose
California, USA

Anna Williams
University of Huddersfield
School of Applied Sciences, Queensgate
Huddersfield, UK

Note

Foreword

I am particularly pleased to write the Foreword to this book, because it addresses the crux of the whole scientific investigative process. The effectiveness of that process is completely dependent on education and knowledge, simply because it's a truism that ‘you do not know what you do not know.’ So if you have no idea that pond water contains diatoms you would never see the significance of their absence in a drowning victim. If you do not know that the diatom population changes from month to month, you would never see the possibility of determining how many months ago a person drowned in a river. Nor would you be able to produce the analytical diatom results in the first place unless you knew how to retrieve and analyse the samples.

This book is a comprehensive and authoritative treasure trove of how to teach both principles and practice.

Of course one change in forensic science education over the last 15 years has been the greatly heightened profile of the subject due to the popularity of TV programmes such as CSI – which in turn has led to an almost exponential increase in the number of courses and students. I have no reservations about saying this is a very good thing–indeed it raises the public understanding of science and has the major advantage of increasing the number of undergraduates studying science. It also provides a feed of excellent students into forensic science research in academia, a role which they have taken over from the Forensic Science Service (FSS). Of course, there are hardly any jobs available as court going forensic scientists, but this is not a new problem–it was exactly the same when I started in the early 1970s. And in fact this is not a problem at all, as it turns out that forensic science graduates possess the very attributes sought by employers of all types–logic and assessment, using a scientific method, communication skills and of course scientific skills.

At school, I always wanted to be Sherlock Holmes, although my initial interest simply lay in the delight of solving logical puzzles. Of course, Sherlock Holmes had the serious advantage that he knew the solution in advance, so that the logic simply involved assembling the building blocks of an already known solution; however that advantage was not immediately apparent to a fascinated ten-year-old.

Towards the end of a long career in forensic science I eventually became a forensic investigator as head of physical evidence at National Crime Faculty (NCF), and my overall aim was still very Sherlock Holmes like, but the process was indeed completely opposite. My job was to think of all the possible explanations for the facts, thus creating multiple hypotheses, which often confused matters further as far as the investigators went. By then analysing the micro-sequence of events, that is the actions and interactions between the offender and victim and environment that must have taken place, we could use physical evidence to prove or disprove that particular hypothesis: pretty well back to Sherlock Holmes and his ‘when you have eliminated the impossible etc., etc.’

At Crime Faculty my primary role was to review undetected and cold case murders and rape series. The initial casework experience was horrific, a word I use advisedly. Crucial observations and inferences that would have detected crimes simply (and cheaply!) were being overlooked. It quickly became apparent that the main problem in using forensic science effectively in the United Kingdom was simply a lack of shared knowledge. The scientists thought in terms of evidence and simply did not appreciate the value of intelligence to investigations–the potential impact of their observations and results over the dozens of investigative lines of enquiry. Equally the police could define their problems but had insufficient knowledge to see which of the myriad techniques available would be most appropriate. The situation was compounded because forensic science is inherently context dependant–often investigators would demand inappropriate tests simply because they had worked previously, under different circumstances.

Progress was made–NCF and the FSS introduced specialist advisors, generalist scientists attached to the investigative team, a role designed to enhance the thinking process in investigations. And the UK Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) Report on Forensic Science (2004) stated unequivocally that the real benefit of forensic science lay in the provision of intelligence during the investigative phase, not hard evidence for use in court.

That overarching view of techniques and processes is particularly necessary because as new scientific instrumentation expanded throughout the 1970s and 1980s, forensic scientists themselves became more and more specialised. By the 1990s it became increasingly unreasonable to expect the police to second guess all the scientific solutions, and thus counterproductive for investigators to choose items to send to the laboratory to answer specific questions, as they traditionally had. The questions were still fine but the laboratory increasingly had more and more and better and better ways of answering them–or answering completely different, and more useful questions, which were completely unknown to individual detectives.

The Chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) (now National Police Chiefs Council) Homicide once described my NCF role as ‘asking stupid questions.’ He meant (I hope!) asking questions that had not occurred to the specialist scientists or investigators. However, forensic science (and forensic intelligence) is not really about DNA or other clever test results but about the significance of those analytical results and observations in any particular context. So forensic science educators need to teach scientific techniques, process and logical thought and apply these skills across a wide range of instrumental techniques and crime types. A glance down the chapter list will demonstrate that this aim has been admirably fulfilled.

Less easy to define and engender are attributes such as a questioning approach and especially the need to encourage a ‘Bayesian thinking’ mind-set, which will lead students to think automatically ‘what other possible explanation can there be for that result.’ Undergraduate courses will provide a bedrock of factual information as well, but students really need to link that questioning mind-set to a wide breadth of factual knowledge of their own. As an example, scientists all know that you just cannot ignite petrol with a cigarette end, but the public who watch films and TV don't. This means the criminals don't either, and giving an impossible explanation for criminal events is often quite a good clue!

If only this book had been available when I was giving evidence in Court! Because whilst it is designed as a resource for educators and trainers, it provides a wealth of information that should also underpin our discussions with lay audiences, whether in Court or when trying to convince a Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) to authorise tests s/he believes irrelevant. Or to explain anything remotely scientific to members of the legal profession…

In summary, it is impossible to provide effective forensic science without a good knowledge of the known context, and an excellent and broad education as to the methods and processes available to clarify that context and to assess significance. That educative resource is exactly what is provided by this book, and I commend it to you unreservedly.

Dave Barclay

Fellow of the Forensic Science Society

Honorary/Emeritus Professor

November 2016

Acknowledgements

The Editors would like to thank Anna-Maria Muller for all her hard work and dedication at the beginning of the journey towards completion of this book.

We would also like to express our thanks to all the contributors whose expertise, experience and diligence has made this book possible, and to the students who have inspired us to produce this text. We hope that the knowledge, experience and enthusiasm accumulated in these pages will benefit forensic science lecturers and trainers and in turn, generations of future students and forensic scientists.

Anna Williams would like to thank her husband Graeme for his unwavering support.

John P. Cassella would like to thank those staff and students who have inspired him to be a better teacher.

Peter D. Maskell would like to thank his family Dawn, Imogen and Caitlyn for keeping him sane in the exile years.