This article was downloaded by: [National Cheng Kung University]On: 11 April 2013, At: 08:17Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian Journal of Forensic SciencesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tajf20

Forensic science, an enabler or dis-enabler for criminal investigation?James Robertson aa National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra,AustraliaVersion of record first published: 10 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: James Robertson (2012): Forensic science, an enabler or dis-enabler forcriminal investigation?, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44:1, 83-91

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2011.595736

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Forensic science, an enabler or dis-enabler for criminal investigation?

James Robertson*

National Centre for Forensic Studies, University of Canberra, Australia

It would be hard to imagine any significant criminal investigation today to whichsome aspect of forensic science did not contribute. But does this mean forensicscience is used effectively in the broader justice system? Media headlines aboundwith criticisms of forensic work delaying the justice process. DNA is often held upas the gold standard to which other aspects of forensic science should aspire. Therecently released US National Academies Report, Strengthening forensic sciencein the US: a path forward1, raised significant concerns about the knowledgebase and practice of forensic science, at least as it is conducted in the US. Sowhere does the truth lie? Is forensic science robust and reliable? Is forensic scienceeffective and/or efficient in support of criminal investigation? This article exploresthese issues and offers some thoughts for the forensic profession but alsochallenges the justice system community to develop a more collegiate approach tothe use of forensic science to improve its efficiency in supporting the criminaljustice system.

Keywords: forensic science; justice system; effectiveness; efficiency; standards

Introduction

This article provides an overview of the main issues facing forensic science, now andin the near future, in support of criminal investigation and the criminal justicesystem. For the Australian Federal Police, criminal investigation covers everythingfrom community-based crime in the ACT to organised and serious crime at anational and international level. Whatever the level and nature of crime, it is fair tosay that the use of scientific and technical support is a given in today’s world.However, this does not guarantee such specialist support is either well used or wellunderstood. For example, the UK Home Office Scientific Work Improvement Model(SWIM) Package report found that:

. detection rates from forensic science vary widely across the forces,

. end-to-end process lead times ranged from below 40 to over 100 days,

. detection and attrition rates vary significantly between work units and evenmore significantly between individual examiners,

*Email: james.robertson@canberra.edu.auWhen this paper was prepared Professor Robertson was the National Manager, Forensic andData Centres with the Australian Federal Police.

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences

Vol. 44, No. 1, March 2012, 83–91

ISSN 0045-0618 print/ISSN 1834-562X online

� 2012 Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2011.595736

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:17

11

Apr

il 20

13

. the conversion rate of identifications to detections is low in many forces, and,

. systems to produce data for performance measurement were often lacking orpoorly implemented2.

This report concluded that there was a direct correlation between lead time andcrime levels. Reducing the lead time through forensic science led to a significantincrease in the detection of volume crime. And, this is by no means the first report ofits kind coming from the UK. In 1996, the Association of Chief Police Officers(ACPO) and the Forensic Science Service (FSS) published a major report calledUsing forensic science effectively (UFSE)3. The main finding of the report was thatpolice needed to be more proactive in using forensic science through improvingawareness amongst investigative and operational officers. It was thereforedisappointing that in 2000 Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary in a reportcalled ‘Under the microscope’4 concluded that:

the advice of UFSE had frequently not been acted upon, but also, that, even moreregrettably, the failure to respond was a product of ignorance of its contents. (Ref. 4,p. 2)

The first recommendation in the report4 was that:

ACPO and chief officers ensure that their strategy and supporting policies on the use offorensic science to tackle volume crime are up to date, known and understood byoperational officers. (Ref. 4, p. 3)

The message is clear – even when forensic science services are able to produce resultsthey are not always being effectively used by police in their investigations.

Are matters any better in Australia? In Australia there is virtually no objectiveevidence to assess the return on investment in the forensic sciences and it is nooverstatement to say that there is a dearth of robust performance measures. One canbe pleased, but by no means complacent, that the AFP has significant (if less thanperfect) performance measures in place, and senior management places significantweight on these. A number of other Australian police and forensic providers havesignificant performance measures in place but these fall well short of a ‘national’ bestpractice framework.

The AFP is also one of two industry partners, along with Victoria Police, in amajor research project on the effectiveness of forensic science in the criminal justicesystem. There are four main areas for this study, which are to:

. identify the processes involved in police investigations and court trials and toinvestigate the phases in which forensic science is typically employed;

. quantify the outcomes of police investigations and court trials that haveutilised forensic services;

. undertake a robust economic interpretation of the effectiveness of a range offorensic science disciplines and techniques; and,

. develop, implement and evaluate an evidence-based good practice model forusing forensic science effectively as intelligence, as an identification science andas an investigative science.5

If we accept that there is a lack of evidence to show that forensic science (broadlydefined) is not being used effectively, can it be claimed it is at least efficient?

84 J. Robertson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:17

11

Apr

il 20

13

Regrettably, this is an even worse ‘report card’. However, it is important to analysethis in a bit more detail.

First, in the minds of many, and despite the portrayal of forensic science in themedia through programmes such as CSI, forensic science is thought of as laboratoryscience. The ‘police’ forensic sciences, such as crime scene work, firearms andfingerprint identification, are still regrettably thought of as a lower level technicianactivity. The recent US National Academies report on Strengthening forensic sciencein the United States: a path forward1 focused almost entirely on laboratory forensicscience. Is the inference that crime scene work is not really science? Although muchwas made in the report about issues with pattern matching disciplines, such asfingerprints, lacking appropriate underpinning knowledge and standards this wasfocused on the end process and not on the field collection of such marks or‘evidence’. Recommendation 4 of this report went as far as to say:

To improve the scientific basis of forensic science examinations and to maximiseindependence from or autonomy within the law enforcement community, Congressshould authorize and appropriate incentive funds to the National Institute of ForensicScience (NIFS) for allocation to state and local jurisdictions for the purpose ofremoving all public forensic laboratories and facilities from the administrative controlof law enforcement agencies or prosecutors’ offices. (Ref. 1, p. 17; emphasis added)

This fails to recognise two vital facts. First, the majority of forensic science (yes,crime scene work) sits within law enforcement agencies. In the UK, police ‘in house’forensic services have been estimated to be 52% of the ‘market’6. Second, thatsuccess in support of investigations is critically dependent on efficient and effectivecrime scene work. There seems no suggestion that crime scene work should beremoved from law enforcement agencies. However, if poor science is applied, this iswhere it will have the maximum negative impact on the justice outcomes – one needonly read a selection of reports into wrongful convictions to see that a commonfeature is problems with crime scene work7,8.

The starting point for forensic science is the crime scene, where potential‘evidence’ is collected. However, recognition of potential evidence is no trivialexercise. The more complex the scene the more it is essential that properly qualified,experienced scientists (working as a team) apply their professional judgement. Ifevidence is not recognised it cannot be recorded and it cannot be collected. It isbeyond the scope of this paper to look at this further, other than to say, that thereare numerous examples of cold case review where it is clear that potentially vitalevidence had been missed or lost due to a failure to recognise its importance. Thevalue of evidence recognition and good crime scene work is illustrated in a recentlypublished case study involving fibres9.

A major positive for crime scene work is that it is timely – or is it? For majorcrime, in urban areas of advanced industrial societies, the response will invariably betimely. However, it is certainly not universally true that this will be the case. Forlesser, so-called volume, crime, this is a real issue for criminal investigation. Thepotential to identify offenders at an early stage is being lost. Evidence from theUnited Kingdom clearly shows more forensic evidence collected at volume crimescenes results in increased identification of suspects4,10. This has the well-understoodmultiplier effect that forensic evidence may link several offences through anintelligence-led approach11. However, this can only work where the police andforensic provider work in partnership.

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 85

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:17

11

Apr

il 20

13

However, the problem is that currently the laboratory side of forensic science isbarely (if at all) able to process items currently collected by crime scene examiners.Hence, a significant increase in items sent to the laboratory would only add to theexisting time delays and the so-called ‘DNA backlog’.

DNA backlog – a myth debunked!

There is no DNA backlog – there is an evidence backlog. The case backlog inforensic laboratories is caused by the time it takes to complete the searching ofitems submitted to laboratories. Unfortunately, there really is a poor appreciationof the time it takes to search numerous items of clothing, etc, which wouldnormally comprise even a modest sized case. Of course, forensic scientists try toreduce the number of items examined by making professional judgments on what islikely to be the most relevant based on the available information, discussion withthe informant (police) and, when possible, the prosecution. It is a very raresituation where the forensic scientist will know the scenario to be presented by thedefence. There is an old throwaway line that ‘slow justice is no justice’.Unfortunately, forensic science finds itself all too often in a pincer movementbetween the desire for faster delivery of results, so as not to impede the legalprocess, balanced with the need for completeness. This complex subject is outsideof the scope of this paper; suffice to comment, as a former forensic scientistmanager, that case management requires the application of risk management,understanding the elements of likelihood and consequence. This could be thelikelihood of a miscarriage of justice and its consequence for the defendant.However, at a practical level, it is simply not possible to analyse every item againstany possible scenario that might be offered at trial. It is perhaps worth reflectionthat forensic evidence in the courtroom is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Withthe falling numbers of committal proceedings in Australian jurisdictions, perhapsless than 5% of all matters examined in the laboratory will result in a forensicscientist giving evidence. An even smaller percentage of cases will see the forensicevidence being strongly contested. Although there is no single set of witness rulesin Australia for forensic scientists, the message is clear. We are meant to bewitnesses for the court, impartial and collaborative. It would help if the justicesystem were to eliminate any remaining element of ‘trial by ambush’ in thosecontested matters.

One is also sometimes left wondering if today in some courts the purpose of acriminal prosecution in our adversarial system has been forgotten. It is not tomarshal and present every possible fact (for completeness) but rather, to present the‘facts’ relevant only to the issues on hand. The Crown Prosecutor’s Manual fromOntario12 captures this rather nicely:

The purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction; it is to lay before ajury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be acrime. (Ref. 12, p. 1)

It has been suggested, naively in my view, that forensic scientists should not beprovided with information about a case as this may result in so-called observerbias13. Recent publications dealing with fingerprint analysis would actually suggestthat far from emotional or extraneous information leading to increased errors, theopposite is true14,15.

86 J. Robertson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:17

11

Apr

il 20

13

Whilst observational bias should not be discounted, the absence of relevantinformation would only further slow down the delivery of forensic results and mighteven produce less relevant results. The best way to improve the existing system, andimprove the efficiency of forensic science, is through improving the professionalpartnership of scientist, informant, lawyer and the justice system focused on therelevant issues being contested. The ‘blind’ reading of analytical results, with whichthere should be no ground to disagree, should not be confused with ‘blindmanagement’ of a case.

The case of the vanishing forensic scientist – a cautionary tale

Reproduced below is an editorial I wrote in 2001 for the Australian Journal ofForensic Sciences16. It is reproduced in full because the message is even more relevanttoday than in 2001.

One only has to pick up any newspaper across the country on any average day to find areport on the use of DNA for forensic purposes. Mostly these reports will be positive, anoffender caught and convicted under circumstances where pre-DNA he or she wouldhave remained undetected or where the evidence would fall short of that required forprosecution. Old cases are being reopened and solved and convicted persons exoneratedthrough retesting of crime samples. We have only recently seen, here in Australia, thefirst use of DNA to demonstrate the innocence of a wrongfully convicted person. Theimminent arrival of a National Criminal Investigation DNA Database (NCIDD) willresult in increasing use of DNA.

Forensic science organisations have been gearing up for some time to meet thisincreasing demand. For example, the NSW Division of Analytical Laboratories havemore than doubled their laboratory space for DNA analysis and have significantlyincreased staff numbers. They are in the process of analysing samples from severalthousand convicted offenders. In SA the Forensic Services Centre is undergoing a multi-million dollar refurbishment. Tasmania has employed an additional ten biologists in thelast two years. The Australian Federal Police have completed a new $5M laboratory andmore than doubled their biology staff numbers. And so the same story is being broadlyrepeated across each State and Territory.

Now of course all of this is to be applauded. Any increase to forensic capacity andcapability in Australia is welcome because we are not especially well resourcedcompared to larger overseas forensic organisations. But is there a dangerous flip side tothe coin? Until the recent expansion in physical capacity the burgeoning DNA industryin forensic laboratories could only be accommodated by the squeeze principle, squeezemore into the same space or squeeze others out! A scenario repeated in laboratoriesaround the world. Additional staff in the DNA area have usually been a mixture of afew new positions and non-replacement of positions in other parts of the laboratory. Alltoo often the other parts of the laboratory have been in the chemical criminalistics area.Hence, the title of this editorial, the case of the vanishing forensic scientist!

In the 1970s, when I entered forensic science, enzyme typing was very new and it wasonly a few years before that ABO blood grouping was the only tool available. Fromnumbers of 1 in 2 (for ABO blood grouping) to 1 in 20 million or more (for DNA) is atremendous advance in our ability to individualise, yet the paradox is that the currentpopulation statistics argument in court is the same old argument that was used bylawyers to question the results from the era of ABO and enzyme technology, but that is astory for another day. In the era of ABO and even enzyme typing, the forensic scientistwas undoubtedly a more holistic species.

The examination of physical evidence, be it of biological origin such as wood orother plant material, soil, glass, paint and a variety of other physical trace materials,detectable using microscopy and a small number of other basic instrumentalapproaches, were core aspects of forensic science. As the words of the current Scottishanthem say, those days are gone now and in the past must remain, but this does not mean

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 87

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:17

11

Apr

il 20

13

that the examination of physical evidence has no place in today’s forensic laboratory.It is not merely a throwaway line to say that there will be, and are, many cases whichthere will be no biological material or in which DNA results will not be useful onanswering the relevant question for the court.

The cautionary tale is that the squeeze has been on the physical evidence capacity offorensic laboratories for many years with a resulting loss of capability. The answer toensuring that capability is retained in Australia, with the relatively small size of theindustry, will probably have to lie in some specialisation between laboratories and somecontribution from academia to ensure critical mass is maintained. In my ownorganisation, the AFP, we have tried very hard to maintain a healthy balance betweenthe biological and chemical/physical aspects of our work and we have very activelysought to create the necessary academic linkages establishing a very productiverelationship with the forensic group at the University of Technology, Sydney, amongstothers.

Finally, the world of DNA is also constantly changing. With miniaturisation andbiological chip technology it will be only a few years until DNA testing will be a fieldtechnology. This has the potential to again change the balance within the laboratory.Now is the time for the managers of forensic organisations to ensure that we invest inall of our people to ensure they are not simply DNA technicians but are forensicscientists in the full and more holistic sense. The real issue is to ensure we use the besttools available to us but that we do not allow these tools to, like the tail, wag the dog!(Ref. 16, pp. 43–44)

There has undoubtedly been an increased emphasis on the role of forensic sciencein identifying individuals through DNA (but also fingerprints, which remain veryimportant forensic evidence). Without getting into a debate about the level ofindividualisation possible through DNA analysis, with current-generation DNAtechnology the major shift in the last 10–15 years has been the ability to analysesmaller and smaller amounts of biological material. When DNA was first introduced20 years ago, clearly visible biological material was required (a significant bloodstainor a strong semen stain or sample). Today it is relatively easy to obtain a DNA resultfrom a targeted area but with no visible biological material. Arguments aside as tothe interpretation of DNA results in the most extreme application of so-called lowcopy number (LCN) DNA, obviously this should be applauded. However, the recentUK report on the use of trace DNA analysis17 pointed out that these ‘profiles’should always be reported with the caveats that;

. the nature of the original starting material is unknown;

. the time at which the DNA was transferred cannot be inferred; and

. the opportunity for secondary transfer is increasing in comparison to standardDNA profiling. (Ref. 17, pp. 23–24)

The authors went on to further state that:

It is inappropriate to comment upon the cellular material from which the DNA arose orthe activity by which the DNA was transferred. (Ref. 17, p. 24)

So what can one say? Nothing, other than that DNA was found of undeterminedbiological origin, deposited at some point in time and perhaps only as a result ofsecondary contact.

Now, to be fair, there are circumstances in which the location of recovered tracebiological material will help answer the ‘what happened’ scenario. However, even inthe best of circumstances, identifying that an individual may have been present at ascene at some time can be of limited value in an investigation. The fact that there is

88 J. Robertson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:17

11

Apr

il 20

13

only limited research on the transfer and persistence of biological traces, does notprovide a sound basis for interpreting such findings (Ref. 17, pp. 21–22). In contrastthere has been extensive research into the transfer and persistence of many types ofphysical evidence, such as fibres18. Such physical evidence can play a vital role inhelping to reconstruct events and answer scenarios built around what happened.

Unfortunately, physical or trace evidence skills have been eroded in manylaboratories and countries around the world. Added to this is the additional factor ofthe increased specialisation that has created a siloed effect in the way in whichforensic examinations are conducted. Put simply, in the past it might be expectedthat one or two laboratory scientists would present evidence, whereas today theremight be anything up to ten individuals. The problem this presents to theinvestigator and, ultimately if the matter goes to court, is constructing a coherentand meaningful picture from the ‘jigsaw pieces’. The real danger is that elements ofevidence will be given too much ‘weight and substance’ and that critical work may bemissed because of the difficulty in managing a complex case. There is a role for thegeneralist forensic scientist who can take a holistic overview of a case and advise theinvestigation team and, at the appropriate time, the legal team. Many reports fromenquiries into wrongful convictions have proposed such a role8, but even today itcould not be considered common practice. Even in the AFP, where there is anawareness of this potential problem, with a strong physical evidence team and activemanagement of major cases, it is still necessary to keep a constant watch to ensurecases are well managed in a holistic way with the necessary information flow. Therecent Vincent enquiry findings into wrongful conviction of a Mr Jama in Victoriaare further proof that systemic failure occurs when individuals fail to understandwhere vital elements have been missed or misunderstood19. Vincent commented thathe was ‘left with the deep impression that at virtually every point, and by almosteveryone involved, it was handled with little insight into the issues which itpresented . . . there were ample warning signs along the way that suggested somethingwas amiss, but they were simply not heeded’ (Ref. 19, p. 11).

This case was not a failure of technology and the analytical technique, but it wasa failure of understanding the holistic process.

The future

The old cliche about there being only two certainties in life, ‘death and taxes’ shouldbe extended to include ‘forensic science’. What is not so certain is how forensicscience will contribute to, and support, future criminal investigation. In an earlierpublication on ‘Science Futures’20, I canvassed how ‘science’ might change how‘forensic’ science evolves and is used. Some things can be predicted with reasonablecertainty and this includes the continuing emergence of computer forensics as thenew DNA for the forensic world. As every incident at any level of crime today haspotential electronic evidence, it has been necessary to seriously rethink how best touse available resources. It would simply not be possible for a forensic computerexpert to attend every ‘scene’ and, hence, education and training for first responders,and then for investors, has been an essential way forward. The role of the computerforensic team will be in more complex investigations and in identifying, developing,validating and rolling out solutions to the first responder and investigator to useappropriately. Yet, with few exceptions, the forensic community has strongly resistedhanding over first responder duties for forensic science, despite never being able to

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:17

11

Apr

il 20

13

realistically attend all crime scenes. Whilst expert forensic resources should betargeted at more complex investigations, this should not be at the total expense ofless complex or volume crime. A balance needs to be reached where simple evidencecollection is left to first responders and expert resources are more targeted at patternsof organised crime. An example of the latter would be a situation where it is clearthere is a pattern of offending, such as particular areas being subject to robberies.It would be of great benefit if more could be achieved at the point of evidencerecognition to assist the recognition process and also to triage and target evidencerecovery, thereby reducing the ‘evidence harvesting’ phase in the laboratory.

History tells us case backlogs will not disappear with the current paradigm –many have tried but with limited and unsustainable outcomes. There needs to bechange to the way in which forensic scientists work and improvements in technologyto support a new approach. Case management at the scene and throughout thesubsequent process needs to be active, holistic and include a criminalistics approach.This is not to deny the importance of early identification of persons of possibleinterest to an investigation. The longstanding wish to be able to conduct DNAtesting in the field is finally within sight21 and this has the potential to change the wayin which cases are managed.

Technology aside, forensic science can only assist the investigation if it is able todeliver more efficient outcomes; put simply, ‘faster, cheaper and more out of it’.Equally, forensic science does not sit in splendid isolation of the continuum that isthe justice system. If forensic science is to be effective and impartial then it is a ‘team’issue. Investigators need to treat forensic scientists as professionals and pay properregard to their professional opinions and advice. Prosecution authorities need to bemore actively involved in defining issues and being robust in presenting evidence insupport of these issues. Whilst disclosure rules are more robust today, there is anargument to examine the rules as they apply to the defence to remove any vestigeof trial by ambush. Magistrates and judges need to also accept that there areresource constraints on all parts of the system and have realistic expectations basedon ensuring forensic resources are applied where they make the most impact. Ifeveryone in the system worked harder at communicating, clearly, there would be alot less wasted effort.

Finally, the basis for a better informed use of forensic science has to lie inbetter education and training for all parties. The US National Academies report1

concluded that:

Lawyers and judges often have insufficient training and background in scientificmethodology, and they often fail to fully comprehend the approaches employed bydifferent forensic science disciplines . . . better connections must be established andprompted between experts in the forensic science disciplines and law schools, legalscholars and practitioners. (Ref. 1, pp. 8–16/17)

This also applies for police. Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary4 found that:

Despite several revisions of the content of training for inspectors and sergeants, nationalsupervisory training for these ranks does not at present provide any input on scientificand technical support. (Ref. 4, p. 6)

He recommended that such awareness training should be provided to all stages ofhuman resource deployments from joining the service to managerial and supervisorytraining (Ref. 4, p. 77).

90 J. Robertson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:17

11

Apr

il 20

13

An improved understanding of the need to work as a team based on a morerealistic expectation and understanding of the ‘part’ contributed by forensic sciencewill deliver a useful outcome. On balance forensic science is an enabler of criminalinvestigation, but there are unavoidable and real concerns about how efficientforensic support is today. This must impact on its effectiveness. Finally, forensicscience is not a substitute for good investigation or for good prosecution, defenceand court processes.

References

1. National Academy of Sciences. Strengthening forensic science in the united states: a pathforward. Washington: National Academy of Sciences, 2009.

2. Home Office (UK). A report on the findings from deploying the work package of thescientific work improvement model (SWIM) within the police service of England andWales. London: Police Standards UK Home Office, 2007.

3. ACPO/FFS. Using forensic science effectively. FSS/ACPO/Audit Commission, 1996.4. Her Majesty’s Inspector, of Constabulary. Under the microscope, thematic inspection

report on scientific and technical support, London: HMIC. 2000.5. Julian R, Kelty S. The effectiveness of forensic science in criminal investigations.

Australasian Policing. 2009;11–16.6. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Forensic science on trial,

seventh report of session 2004–05, London: The Stationary Office. 2005.7. Shannon CR. Royal Commission Report Concerning the Conviction of Edward Charles

Splatt. Adelaide: Government Printer; 1984.8. Kaufman F. The Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin. Ontario

Ministry of the Attorney General; 1998.9. Bennett S, Roux CP, Robertson J. The significance of fibre transfer and persistence – a

case study. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2010;42:221–228.10. Burrows J, Tarling R, Mackie A, Poole H, Hodgson B. Forensic Science Pathfinder

project: evaluating increased forensic activity in two English police forces. Home OfficeOnline Report 46/05. 2005.

11. Ribaux O, Baylon A, Roux C, Delemont O, Lock E, Zingg C, Margot P. Intelligence-ledcrime scene processing part 1: forensic intelligence. Forensic Sci Int. 2009. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.10.027.

12. Ontario Crown Prosecutors Manual; 2005. Accessed online 11 December, 2010 atwww.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/crim/cpm

13. Risinger DM, Saks MJ, Thompson WE, Rosenthal R. The Daubert/Kumho implicationsof observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion.Calif Law Rev. 1992;90:1–56.

14. Hall LJ, Player B. Will the introduction of an emotional to context affect fingerprintanalysis and decision making. Forensic Sci Int. 2008;181:36–39.

15. Langenburg G, Champod C, Wertheim P. Testing for potential contextual bias effectsduring the verification stage of the ACE-V methodology when conducting fingerprintcomparisons. J Forensic Sci. 2009;54:571–582.

16. Robertson J. The case of the vanishing forensic scientist: a cautionary tale! Aust JForensic Sci. 2001;33:43–46.

17. Caddy B, Taylor GR, Linacre MJ. A review of the science of low template DNA analysis.Office of the Forensic Regulator; 2008. 23–24.

18. Robertson J, Roux C. From crime scene to the laboratory, transfer, persistence andrecovery of fibres. In Forensic examination of fibres, 2nd ed, London: Taylor & Francis.Robertson J, Grieve M, editors. 1999. Chapter 5.1, pp 89–134.

19. Vincent F. Inquiry into the Circumstances that Led to the Conviction of Mr FarahAbdullzadir Jama. Victorian Government Printer; 2010.

20. Robertson J. Science futures. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2008;40:17–24.21. French DJ, Howard RL, Gale N, Brown T, McDowell DG, Debenham PG. Interrogation

of short tandem repeats using florescent probes and melting curve analysis: a step towardsrapid DNA identity screening. Forensic Sci Int; Genet. 2008;2:333–339.

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

8:17

11

Apr

il 20

13