This document provides an overview of the history and development of forensic science. Some key points include: - Forensic science began to emerge in the 19th century following advances in chemistry. One landmark was the 1836 Marsh test for detecting arsenic poisoning. - Early methods for identifying criminals included Bertillonage, which used body measurements, and fingerprint analysis developed in the late 1800s. - Foundational principles like Locard's exchange principle established that contact between people or objects leaves evidence. - Forensic science split into medical and crime lab divisions, with medical forensic focusing on determining cause and manner of death through tools like estimating time of death.

1. Forensic Science Course for BLS 201 Lecture Notes
Introduction
The Development of Forensic Science
The word “forensic” derives from the Latin word for “forum”, meaning public. It has taken on a meaning associated with
courts of law, which are public. Thus, in our culture “forensic” really means “pertaining to the judiciary”. Thus, forensic
science is the application of the areas of science (and particularly natural science) to both criminal and civil law.
The use of science in enforcing law is relatively antique. In ancient Babylon, fingerprints in clay tablets were used as a way
of signing contracts; in 8th century China, thumbprints and fingerprints were employed similarly. At least as early as the
14th century, a Persian doctor observed that no two fingerprints on contracts seemed to be the same.
As regards criminal activity, in 1248, a book, Hsi DuanYu (the Washing Away of Wrongs) published by in China, described
how to distinguish drowning from strangulation. It was the first recorded application of medical knowledge to the
solution of crime. In 1609, the first treatise (dissertation/thesis) on systematic document examination was published in
France. Then in 1784, one of the first documented uses of physical matching saw an Englishman convicted of murder
based on the torn edge of a wad of newspaper in a pistol that matched a piece remaining in his pocket.
However, with a few exceptions such as those mentioned above, Forensic Science as it applies to criminal and civil law
was by-and-large born in the 19th century, following the development of chemistry as a distinct science in the mid-to-late
18th century.
One of the most famous early applications involved arsenic poisoning. Arsenic(III) oxide, As2O3 , was first produced
commercially in the 8th century as a result of refining ore in iron and lead mining. It became the poison of choice for many
over the succeeding centuries. As III oxide is colorless, odorless and tasteless. Its symptoms mimic natural diseases;
acute arsenic poisoning resembles gastroenteritis (which is the inflammation of the mucous membrane of the stomach
and intestines), while chronic arsenic poisoning presents a combined picture of stomach upsets, peripheral neuritis
(which is the inflammation of a nerve or group of nerves, characterized by pain, loss of reflexes, and atrophy of the
affected muscles) and dermatitis (or inflammation of the skin). The chronic poisoning is much more common– the
poisoner gives the victim sublethal doses over a long period of time. The victim will then die after a period ranging from a
few months to several years. Besides being colorless, tasteless and odorless, arsenic proved ideal for a long while
because its presence in tissues was undetectable. Arsenic poisoning became so popular it was referred to as poudre de
succession, or “inheritance powder”.
In 1836 all this changed. In that year, English chemist James Marsh developed a test for the presence of arsenic in
tissues. The oxide is changed into arsenious acid, H3AsO3 , by stomach acids, and the acid is absorbed into the tissues.
Subsequent treatment of the tissues with Zn liberates arsine gas, H3As. The gas is allowed to pass near a glass disk (or
petri dish), where application of a flame causes the arsine to decompose into its elements. The metallic As is deposited as
a gray-black film on the glass. The Marsh test (as it became known) is fairly sensitive, being able to detect as little as 0.02
mg As.
In December, 1839, Charles Lafarge, a minor French industrialist, was on a business trip in Paris, several hundred miles
away from his home in Le Glandier. He became ill after eating a cake sent to him by his wife. Mrs. Lafarge was a young
widow who had married Lafarge through an arrangement by a marriage broker following the death of her first husband.
The marriage was an unhappy one. Lafarge returned home, his condition deteriorated, and he died on January 13, 1840.
Arsenious acid was found in his stomach, and it became known that his wife, Marie, had bought arsenic as rat-poison
from a drug store as far back as mid-December, 1839. She was arrested and sent for trial.
The 19th century saw great strides in developing evidence that would uniquely identify (or individualize) a criminal. The
first such system was known as anthropometry, or bertillonage.
Bertillonage was the brainchild of Alphonse Bertillon (1853-1914), who started with the Paris police department in 1879
as a clerk. He had absorbed some scientific knowledge from his father, an anthropologist who had labored to prove that
1

2. each human being had unique variations in physical characteristics. Young Bertillon quickly saw that his father’s academic
obsession might have practical value in police work, where detectives had trouble seeing past the disguises and aliases
affected by criminals.
Bertillon began using his father’s measuring techniques on arrestees and convicts, fastidiously recording the data on
cards. He developed a filing system that put a person in one of three main categories based upon head size. He then
subdivided them further according to the dimensions of the left middle finger, and so on down the line, using 11 different
bodily measurements.
Bertillon had calculated that the probability of two people having precisely the same 11 measurements was one in four
million. A criminal might wear a fake beard or give a phony name, but Bertillon noted that “subjects cannot exercise the
slightest influence on their cranium diameters.” His police superiors thought he was a bit crazy until they used his data
successfully to identify nearly 800 suspects in three years. In French courts, where suspects were guilty until proven
otherwise, proof of a past criminal record was a powerful tool for winning convictions, and Bertillon’s star rose. In 1892
he was appointed director of the newly formed Bureau of Identification of the Paris police. Before long police
departments around the world were using bertillonage. Since it was cumbersome for detectives to stop suspects in the
street and take their measurements, Bertillon developed a scaled-down, pocket-card version of his system.
What doomed the Bertillon system was unsettling proof of its shortcomings. In 1903 a newly convicted prisoner named
Will West arrived at Leavenworth Prison, and was escorted by guards to the office. There they measured his height and
the expanse of his arms and wrapped a pair of steel calipers around his head. After that they noted the length of his right
ear, left foot, left forearm and selected fingers. They examined the size and shape of his nose, measured the tilt of his
forehead and examined his skin for scars and blemishes. All were dutifully recorded on an index card, establishing Will
West’s identity under the Bertillon system.
As West’s Bertillon measurements were taken at Leavenworth, one of the clerks had a nagging suspicion. Even though
West’s paperwork indicated he was a new prisoner, the clerk was sure he had measured him before. Sometime later the
clerk checked through the prison files, and sure enough, found an intake file for a William West who possessed the same
Bertillon measurements. But there was a problem: This William West, who had been incarcerated at Leavenworth two
years before, was still a prisoner. They were two different men.
Prison officials summoned both prisoners to the office and were astonished to discover that, although they were not
related, they resembled one another as if they had been twins. Then Will West and William West were resubmitted to
bertillonage, and their measurements were found to be virtually identical.
A few years later prison officials did find one distinguishing characteristic between the Wests: Their fingerprints were
unmistakably different. By then, police departments and prisons across the United States and Europe had switched to
the fingerprint identification system.
The English first began using fingerprints in July of 1858, when Sir William Herschel (1792 - 1871), Chief Magistrate of the
Hooghly district in Jungipoor, India, first used fingerprints on native contracts. On a impulse, and with no thought toward
personal identification, Herschel had a local businessman impress his hand print on the back of a contract. The idea was
merely “... to frighten [him]. The native was suitably impressed, and Herschel made a habit of requiring palm prints– and
later, simply the prints of the right index and middle fingers– on every contract made with the locals. Personal contact
with the document, they believed, made the contract more binding than if they simply signed it. Thus, the first wide-
scale, modern-day use of fingerprints was predicated not upon scientific evidence, but upon superstitious beliefs.
As his fingerprint collection grew, however, Herschel began to note that the inked impressions could, indeed, prove or
disprove identity. While his experience with fingerprinting was admittedly limited, Sir Herschel’s private conviction that
all fingerprints were unique to the individual, as well as permanent throughout that individual’s life, inspired him to
expand their use.
During the 1870’s, Dr. Henry Faulds, the British Surgeon-Superintendent of Tsukiji Hospital in Tokyo, Japan, took up the
study of “skin-furrows” after noticing finger marks on specimens of “prehistoric” pottery. A learned and industrious man,
Dr. Faulds not only recognized the importance of fingerprints as a means of individualization, but devised a method of
classification as well.
2

3. In 1880, Faulds forwarded an explanation of his classification system and a sample of the forms he had designed for
recording inked impressions, to Sir Charles Darwin. Darwin, in advanced age and ill health, informed Dr. Faulds that he
could be of no assistance to him, but promised to pass the materials on to his cousin, Francis Galton. Also in 1880, Dr.
Faulds published an article in the Scientific Journal, Nautre. He discussed fingerprints as a means of personal
identification, and the use of printers ink as a method for obtaining such fingerprints. He was the first to explicitly
recognize the value of latent prints left at crime scenes.
Sir Francis Galton (1822 - 1911)– a British anthropologist, a cousin of Charles Darwin, and the lucky recipient of the
information forwarded to Darwin by Henry Faulds– began his observations of fingerprints as a means of identification in
the 1880’s. In 1892, he published his book, Fingerprints, establishing the individuality and permanence of fingerprints.
The book included the first broadly accepted classification system for fingerprints.
Galton’s primary interest in fingerprints was as an aid in determining heredity and racial background. While he soon
discovered that fingerprints offered no firm clues to an individual’s intelligence or genetic history, he was able to
scientifically prove what Herschel and Faulds already suspected: that fingerprints do not change over the course of an
individual’s lifetime, and that no two fingerprints are exactly the same. According to his calculations, the odds of two
individual fingerprints being the same were 1 in 64 billion. Galton identified the characteristics by which fingerprints can
be identified. These same characteristics (minutia) are basically still in use today, and are often referred to as Galton’s
Details.
Today, the once-famous Bertillon is virtually forgotten, and fingerprinting– despite the recent advent of DNA testing and
other innovations– is still the most widely recognized method of individualization. It’s now estimated that the odds are
67 billion to one against any two different persons producing an identical print, and judges and juries throughout the
world accept that two identical prints must come from the same person.
th
The early 20 century saw the beginnings of great strides in medico-biological sciences. In 1901 Paul Uhlenhuth, a
German immunologist, developed the precipitin test for differentiating species. He was also one of the first to institute
standards, controls, and QA/QC procedures. In 1900, Karl Landsteiner first discovered that human blood divided into
four groups– now recognized as A, B, AB and O– and was awarded the Nobel prize for his work in 1930. Max Richter
adapted the technique to type blood stains. This is one of the first instances of performing validation experiments
specifically to adapt a method for forensic science. Landsteiner’s continued work on the detection of blood, its species,
and its type formed the basis of practically all subsequent work. Leone Lattes, professor at the Institute of Forensic
Medicine in Turin Italy, developed the first antibody test for ABO blood groups. He first used the test in casework to
resolve a marital dispute. He published the first book dealing not only with clinical issues, but inheritability, paternity, and
typing of dried blood stains. Even now, the 1915 Lattes test for typing dried blood stains is often used.
Dr. Edmond Locard (1877 - 1966) was perhaps the most famous of the students taught by Bertillon. Locard’s work
formed the basis for what is widely regarded as a cornerstone of the forensic sciences, the Locard Exchange Principle.
In 1910, Locard persuaded police in Lyons, France, to give him two upper floor rooms and two assistants; he started the
first forensics lab. Enthusiasm and research overcame shortages of money and materials and Locard became
internationally famous, eventually becoming the founder of the Institute of Criminalistics at the University of Lyons. Dr.
Locard, like Bertillon before him, advocated the application of scientific methods and logic to criminal investigation and
identification.
While Locard made many significant contributions (to fingerprinting, for example), he is most famous for his Exchange
Principle. It was Dr. Locard’s belief and assertion that when any person comes into contact with an object or another
person, a cross-transfer of physical evidence occurs. By recognizing, documenting, and examining the nature and extent
of this evidentiary exchange, Locard observed that criminals could be associated with particular locations, items of
evidence and victims. The detection of the exchanged materials is interpreted to mean that the two objects were in
contact. This is the cause and effect principle reversed; the effect is observed and the cause is concluded. Forensic
scientists also recognize that the nature and extent of this exchange can be used not only to associate a criminal with
locations, items, and victims, but with specific actions as well. In one of several famous cases, three men were suspects in
a counterfeiting ring. Locard examined their clothing, and found minute metallic particles. Analysis showed these
fragments to be exactly the same alloy as used in the coins. The suspects were arrested and later confessed. Locard’s
successes were pivotal in causing police in other nations (notably Austria, Germany, Holland, Sweden and Finland) to
starts their own forensic labs.
3

4. Forensic Science Services
Forensic Science is broadly divides into “medical” and “crime lab” components, and these two divisions are frequently
separate from one another, both physically and logistically.
Medical Aspects
Included here are the following disciplines:
(1) Forensic Medicine, including pathology, forensic pathology, legal medicine and medical jurisprudence. Practitioners
are usually MD’s or Vet Docs and who have specialized certification in pathology or forensic pathology. They are
concerned with cause and manner of death and also sometimes are involved in medical malpractice and insurance
fraud cases (you will not do this as BLS graduate but it is useful to know what this deals with and will be covered
well in Forensic Pathology).
The investigation will focus on answering these questions: Who is the victim? What injuries are present? Why, when and
how were the injuries produced? The primary goal is first to determine the cause of death, which is a step-by-step
specification of the events or conditions which caused death, starting from the most specific and expanding outward to
the more general. Once the cause of death is determined, the manner of death will then be classified as: natural,
homicide, suicide, accident, or undetermined.
Time of death can be estimated in several ways.
• Immediately after death, the muscles relax. But glycolysis continues for a short while and as ATP is hydrolyzed into
ADP and lactic acid, strong chemical links are formed between the actin and myosin. The muscles become rigid with
no associated shortening. This is rigor mortis. Rigor starts within ½ - 1 hour after death, is complete after 6-12 hours,
and disappears after 24-48 hours because decomposition causes a lysing of the bonds.
• Livor mortis is the settling of blood into the lower recesses of the body due to gravity. The engorged vessels then
rupture, sending blood irreversibly into the tissues and causing the affected regions to turn dark purple-blue. No livor
appears in areas which are restricted by clothing or other objects. Livor starts immediately after death and continues
for up to 8-12 hours. It can be used to determine if a body was moved postmortem.
• Algor mortis is the gradual cooling of the body to ambient temperature. As a general rule, the body loses 1 to 1½
o
F/hour, starting about 1 hour postmortem. This is, however, only a crude estimate as the actual rate of loss can be
influenced by myriad additional factors such as size of the victim, clothing, weather, body position, etc. One model
gives the approximate number of hours postmortem as (98.4 - rectal temperature)/1.5 .
• If an autopsy is performed, the amount and type of food in the stomach can also provide clues as to the time of
death.
• Lastly, upon death the cells on the inner surface of the eye begin releasing potassium into the vitreous humor (ocular
fluid). By measuring the potassium levels at several intervals, the pathologist can determine the rate of release, and
then work backward to determine the approximate time of death.
For older corpses, the overall condition will be controlled by two competing processes:
• Decomposition, which is the breaking down of the body by action of its own enzymes, and
• Putrefaction, wherein the bowels become permeable to their own bacteria, which then start to seep and grow in the
body tissues.
After 12-36 hours, a greenish discoloration will begin in the lower right quadrant. Eventually this hue will spread to the
entire body. It is due to the denaturation of hemoglobin via action of the putrefaction bacteria.
After 36-48 hours, marbling will occur. Blood in the vessels is hemolyzed, causing the blood vessels to be outlined in a
dark green-black color.
After 36-72 hours the corpse will start to bloat, particularly in the facial and genital regions. This bloating is due to the
buildup of the gases which accompany decomposition and putrefaction. After about 3 days, the gases will come pouring
out of all the body’s orifices (nose, rectum, vagina, etc.) along with a bloody fluid called purge fluid. After 4-7 days, the
skin starts to slip off.
4

5. For corpses which remain undiscovered for long periods, the outcomes can include
• Skeletonization, which may take as little as 2 weeks or as long as 1½ years and is common in temperate regions,
• Mummification, which is more common in arid regions wherein rapid water loss causes cessation of bacterial
activity; it may start after one week but take up to six months to complete, and
• Adipocere formation, which requires the corpse be in a moist and warm environment; it is common in bodies
immersed in water. The fat is converted into free fatty acids which are then saponified. The “skin” has a slippery,
greasy feel to it.
(2) Forensic Odontology, or forensic dentistry, which is the application of dentistry to identification of human remains,
especially in cases of mass disaster or in cases where the bodies would otherwise be unidentifiable. The enamel that
comprises teeth is the hardest substance within a body, so teeth outlast all tissues and organs. Forensic
odontologists may also be called upon to analyze bite marks in criminal cases. Forensic odontology is a subdiscipline
of dentistry.
(3) Forensic Anthropology, the practitioners of which are concerned with personal identification of victims based on
skeletal remains. The rate of decay of bones is very slow, requiring many decades or even centuries. Bone injuries
can lead to both an identification of a particular individual (by identifying an old break, for example), or, if fresh, can
shed clues on the cause and manner of death. Even in the absence of injuries, bones can give clues as to the age, sex,
weight and race of the victim. Sometimes faces can be reconstructed from skulls. Forensic anthropologists also
develop data bases concerning average body structures as a function of age, weight, race, sex, etc. These data can
later be used to start developing the profile of a skeletonized victim, as mentioned above. Practitioners are physical
anthropologists.
(4) Forensic Entomology, which can be an important way of estimating time or location of death. Immediately after
decomposition begins, bodies are infested with insects, particularly blow flies, which are drawn to the mucus
membranes of the nose, eyes, rectum, vagina and mouth. The eggs are laid in the decomposing flesh and tissue, and
these ultimately mature into larvae (3 days), pupae (6 - 10 days), and adults (12 - 18 days). The stage of development
of the blow flies is an indicator of time of death, while the precise insects present may provide a clue as to location of
death. The analyses are actually quite complicated because the insect life cycles are extremely sensitive to ambient
temperatures and other weather patterns.
Crime Lab Aspects
These fields are often known collectively as criminalistics, although this name also implies a certain subdiscipline, as well.
Included are all of the following:
(a) Criminalistics, which is concerned with all manner of trace and transfer evidence analysis, including fibers, hairs,
paint, glass, soil, blood and physiological fluids (serology), DNA, arson accelerants, explosive residues, drug
identification, botanical specimens, and pattern and imprint interpretation. Criminalistics is the broadest area of
work which is commonly done at a crime lab. It is entirely possible that Criminalistics will be split up among several
smaller divisions, such as a Physical Science Unit (for evidence which is chemical, physical and/or geological in
nature, such as drugs, paint, glass, soil, accelerants, residues, patterns and imprints), and a Biological Science Unit
(responsible for hair and fibers, DNA, serology, botanical samples, etc.).
(b) Toxicology, which has to do with the determination of toxins and drugs in human tissues and organs, and especially
the role these toxins may have played in death.
(c) Questioned Documents, which includes comparisons of handwriting, printed and copied materials, and analysis of
the inks, toners, papers and other materials used to produce the documents. Also included are examinations of
indented writings (such as those left underneath a piece of paper which has been written on), obliterations and
erasures, and burned or charred documents.
(d) Firearms and Toolmarks, which pertains to firearm identification and comparisons of markings on bullets, cartridges
and other projectiles, especially for purposes of telling whether or not a particular projectile was fired from a
particular firearm. Clothing is also examined in order to detect powder residues, as well as to estimate how far away
was the weapon responsible for the residue. Toolmark identification is much the same enterprise except that it
might include marks left by burglary tools, for example.
5

6. (e) Fingerprints, which includes classification and organization of prints into useable data bases, development of latent
prints, and comparisons with known and unknown prints.
(f) Photography, both as a means of recording evidence (perhaps using very specialized films and techniques, like UV, IR
and X-Ray photography) and in the preparation of photographic displays to be used during trial.
(g) Voiceprint Analysis, which involves trying to individualize a voice to a particular person by comparing the sound
spectrograph of a suspect’s voice to that found on a recording (perhaps a threat left on an answering machine or
recorded surreptitiously during a telephone conversation).
(h) Evidence Collection. Here, a group of highly trained technicians are sent to major crime scenes to document, collect
and preserve physical evidence, which then will be sent to the crime lab for analysis.
These areas of specialization are somewhat arbitrary. For example, Firearms and Toolmarks is sometimes included along
with criminalistics, and hairs are sometimes grouped along with forensic anthropology. Toxicology is frequently a
subspecialty of the ME’s office. Further, it is unlikely that any one crime lab would have every subdiscipline represented.
Also there are other disciplines which are springing up all the time; one obvious one is computer crimes, which is an area
becoming increasingly represented in crime labs.
While it takes considerable specialized and advanced training to enter the medical end of forensic science, the typical
preparation for a technical crime lab worker is to earn a bachelor’s degree in either biology or (more commonly)
chemistry, followed by either a master’s degree in one of these areas or perhaps with simply on-the-job training at a
crime lab. However, to rise to a level of significant responsibility in a crime lab will require a Ph.D. degree, often in either
chemistry or biology. In all cases, significant continuing education will be necessitated.
Additional Aspects
Beyond the medical and crime lab aspects to forensics, there are a few other disciplines that are sometimes encountered,
but which don’t fit nicely into one group or the other. Included here would be such things as
Forensic accountants, who specialize in looking for criminal activity on a company’s books or within an individual’s bank
account records, and
Forensic engineers, who are engaged in failure analysis, accident reconstructions, and the causes and origins of fires and
explosions.
This course will deal principally with criminalistics (in the larger sense); that is, with the “crime lab”, rather than the
“medical” or “additional” aspects of forensic science.
Clime Lab: The Basics
We would like to think that law enforcement tirelessly investigates all crimes, no matter who is the victim or how serious
the crime is judged to be. That is not the case. The amount of forensic investigation which is ever possible is largely
controlled by decisions made by the original investigators, and these are almost invariably police. Different crimes do not
receive the same amount of investigative attention. Frequently, the level of attention is not even proportional to the
level of occurrence of a particular crime. For example, burglaries may occur 50 times more frequently than homicides, yet
burglary investigations may receive only a small fraction of the time invested in a single homicide. In general, crimes
against persons are investigated much more thoroughly than crimes against property.
Unfortunately, decisions about the extent of physical-evidence involvement in the search and investigation stages of a
case are usually not made by forensic scientists but by police officers or evidence technicians. There is no guarantee
usually that either of these parties do well appreciate the nature or importance of the evidence they take.
Goals of the forensic scientist
Having been presented with a piece of physical evidence, the goals of the forensic scientist are three-fold: (1)
identification, (2) individualization, and (3) reconstruction. Only the first of these is common in the other natural
sciences. The last two are almost entirely within the purview of forensic science.
6

7. (1) Identification is essentially a classification scheme, common in all science, where objects are assigned to categories
and given names. Different items in the same category all have the same name. Thus, determining whether remains
are human or not is a process of identification. Determining whether a particular liquid is gasoline is identification.
And determining whether a dried stain is human semen is identification. Identification is accomplished by comparing
the properties of the unknown material with the class characteristics of the group, as they have been previously
established. Class characteristics are properties that all members of a certain group must possess.
(2) Individualization is common only in forensic science. It involves proving that a particular sample is unique, even
among members of the same class. Individualization may also refer to the demonstration that a questioned sample
and a known sample are of a common origin. Here we are operating under the assumption that objects possess
individual characteristics that can be used to distinguish them from other members of the same class. For example,
proving that remains are human is an identification; proving that the remains are those of Peter XXX is an
individualization. Clearly, fingerprints, DNA and dental records provide means of individualization, rather than the
more common (but incorrect) notion that they provide means of identification.
Individualization is the most demanding requirement placed on a forensic scientist. For most types of evidence,
individualization is an as yet unrealized objective. In the end, individualization is a matter of statistical probability.
For example, suppose one is presented a paint chip and asked to prove whether or not it came from a particular car.
If the chip edges and area match a scratch on the car, the evidence is deemed conclusive. But what if it doesn’t?
Then one must be prepared to say how likely it would be for some other paint chip to have all the chemical and
physical properties as the questioned chip. This requires an enormous data base of paint analyses. A similar situation
arises in the analysis of fibers, hairs and blood groups. Suppose a suspect was known to have type A blood and a
victim had type O blood. The suspect had a drop of type O blood on his socks. One can certainly testify that such a
finding is consistent with the suspect causing harm to the victim, but that is about all that can be inferred. To make a
more meaningful individualization, one would either have to do a DNA test on the blood, or perhaps be able to quote
the probability that any random person might have socks containing a spatter of type O blood. The probability of the
latter event is likely much more significant than most people would think.
(3) Reconstruction. Here, the various pieces of identified and individualized physical evidence are put together
inductively to arrive at a hypothesis for the reconstruction of the crime, meaning that one establishes the likely
sequence of events. This is difficult to do, and is often impossible. However, it is especially valuable in cases where
there is no eyewitness testimony, or where such testimony may be deemed unreliable. Like individualization,
reconstruction is unique to forensic science.
Implicitly, another way in which forensic science is unique among natural sciences is its constant interaction with the
legal system, particularly law enforcement and the judiciary. This starts with evidence collection, which is often
controlled by law enforcement. Then there is the matter of crime labs generally being controlled by (or strongly linked
with) prosecutors and/or police.
Like other scientists, forensic scientists think of themselves as unbiased and unprejudiced gleaners of the “truth”, and
would deny that their opinions are unfairly skewed by the fact that they are employed by the prosecution. Indeed, they
prefer to think of themselves as providing evidence to the Court rather than to the prosecution. The rules of discovery
also help to even the playing field; by these rules, the prosecution must share its evidence with the defense prior to a
criminal trial, although the converse is not usually required. But the fact remains that while various tests may,
themselves, be unbiased and objective, the interpretations of those tests (particularly as regards individualization and
reconstruction) can be highly subjective. For example, a test for blood might be viewed as only presumptive by one
forensic scientist, but may well be considered proof positive by another. It stands to reason that the opposing attorneys
will want to find forensic scientists who happen to hold the opinion most beneficial to their client. For this reason, there
are a number of independent forensics labs in the country. However, most of these, based on their past case work, will
work only for the prosecution or the defense.
The biggest use of forensic science is at the adjudication (mediation) stage of a case. A witness of Fact or Ordinary/Lay
witness at a trial can only offer evidence of things he actually witnessed, and he may neither speculate nor offer an
opinion. In contrast, expert witnesses are permitted to offer opinions or interpretation based on training, knowledge or
experience in order to help the Court evaluate evidence that the Court lacks expertise with. The opinions are viewed as
7

8. being only those of the witness, and the jury is free to ignore the experts’ opinions. The judge will determine if you are
qualified as an expert witness based on the evidence of your qualifications
The standard rules for admissibility of scientific evidence court by the expert witness vary from one country to another
but generally they are required in those cases in which the matter of inquiry is such that inexperienced persons are
unlikely to prove or capable of forming a correct judgment upon it. When the question involved does not lie within the
range of common experience or common knowledge, but requires special experience or special knowledge, then the
opinions of witnesses skilled in that particular science, art, or trade to which the question relates is admissible in
evidence.” In these cases, the prosecution and defense attorneys are allowed to bring various experts before the Court,
but all of whom will have to testify that the methods used are broadly accepted by the relevant members of the scientific
community. Also, books and scholarly articles constitute compelling proof of a method’s general acceptance, as do prior
judicial decisions relating to the technique in question.
Courtroom Testimony
To testify in a court of law as an expert witness, you will be asked about your “qualifications”. The side for which you are
testifying for will ask you to describe your schooling, experience, special training, etc. The prosecution from the other
side will then attempt to discredit your qualifications by suggesting that your qualifications are not specific to the case at
hand. For example – having training and experience in laboratory sciences does not qualify you to be an expert for in
forensic pathology etc. The decision to admit you as an expert is however not up to the opposing side, it is up to the
judge’s discretion. Qualifications as an “ expert witness is based on your formal school training , long-term experience in
relevant and court case related area, other special training and experience from seminars and personal tutorage
In most cases you past experience specific to subject at hand ( i.e. how many similar cases have you examined?) is
important . Past publications and presentations and professional recognition and activities in forensic science will further
fasten your credibility as expert witness
In this regard expert witness might be required to provide CV, list of continuing education and previous legal testimony.
Hence it is import to keep a career list of numbers and type of previous examinations, etc you have been involved into.
The Crime Scene investigations
I. Review and Overview of Physical Evidence
In a court of law, four types of evidence may be presented:
1) Testimonial Evidence. The evidence comes to court through a witness, who speaks under oath about something he
saw (eyewitness), heard (hearsay witness) or knows (a character witness, for example).
2) Physical Evidence. This represents an object which is real (can literally be taken into the jury room), direct (requires
no preliminary facts) and non-circumstantial (meaning that no inference is required). However, circumstantial
evidence is sometimes both offered and strengthened by expert testimony.
3) Documentary Evidence. Samples of writing, sound or video recordings, and transcripts of telephone conversations,
for example.
4) Demonstrative Evidence. Types of real evidence used to illustrate, recreate or demonstrate tangible things. For
instance, a scale model of a crime scene would fall into this category.
Predominantly, criminalists collect and later analyze physical evidence, although occasionally they may also be involved
with documentary or demonstrative evidence, as well. As a practical matter, physical evidence includes any and all
relevant materials or objects associated with a crime scene, a victim, a suspect or a witness. Literally, almost any object
can be considered a piece of physical evidence under the right circumstances. Physical evidence can be collected at the
scene of a crime, on the person of a victim, suspect or witness, or from an area (car, home, job site) associated with a
victim, suspect or witness.
There are several different types of physical evidence samples that are likely to be collected and analyzed. A questioned
sample (also called an unknown sample) is an object or material which is of unknown origin. It may be lifted from the
scene or the victim, for example. One way to establish a connection between questioned sample and a particular person
or place is to take a known sample from the relevant person or place for comparison. Known samples can also be called
control samples, reference samples and standard samples. Sometimes the known sample has to be produced. For
example, a suspect may have to submit several samples of his handwriting. Or a suspect’s gun will have to be fired so as
8

9. to examine both the rifling on the bullets as well as the toolmarks on the cartridge cases. Known samples which are
produced are sometimes called exemplars.
In processing the crime scene and during the subsequent investigation, it is crucial to remember that one needs to collect
both questioned samples and known samples. For example, suppose that at a murder scene there are footprints in moist
soil leading both to and away from a corpse. Casts would be made of the shoeprints. Because it is not clear who left the
shoeprints, they serve as the questioned samples. If at a later date a suspect is developed, then law enforcement might
obtain a warrant to enter the suspect’s home specifically in order to search for and seize his shoes. The soles of the shoes
would be inked, and the tread patterns would then be transferred to paper. These transfer patterns would be the known
samples. One then proceeds to compare the questioned and known shoeprints, hoping for a match in the tread design
and wear patterns. If such a match is discovered, then the questioned shoeprints have been associated, to some level of
certainty, with the suspect.
The major goals associated with the analysis of physical evidence include identification, individualization and
reconstruction. Individualization is one of the most difficult and yet fruitful aims. Complete individualization is currently
possible only for a few types of evidence, including fingerprints, DNA and physical matches (or “jigsaw fits”), but a partial
individualization is also often useful. Using the previous example, if the tread design and wear patterns of a questioned
shoeprint seem to match those of a known shoeprint, this is a partial individualization. It is not possible to say with 100%
certainty that there is a perfect match, because one likely doesn’t know the probability of a random person possessing
shoes evidencing such a tread design and exhibiting such wear patterns. Yet the likelihood, while unknown, seems
remote to most persons, and juries may find such evidence quite compelling.
Beyond the objectives stated above, the primary goal of analyzing physical evidence is to make the facts of a case clear.
The analysis and interpretation of physical evidence can provide several different particular types of information,
including:
1) Information on the Corpus Delicti (literally, the “body of the crime”). These facts prove that a crime has taken place.
Examples of such evidence for the crime of burglary would include toolmarks, broken doors and windows, and
ransacked rooms. For an assault, pertinent evidence may include the blood of the victim, a weapon, and torn
clothing.
2) Information on the Modus Operandi (literally, the “method of operation”, or “MO”). Many career criminals have a
characteristic way they commit a particular crime. In burglary cases, the type of tools used and the toolmarks they
leave, methods of ingress (entry) and egress (way out) , and types of items taken are all important.
3) Linking a Suspect and a Victim. This is extremely important, particularly in violent crimes. Blood and other body
fluids, hairs, fibers and cosmetics can be transferred between victim and perpetrator. For this reason, every victim
and every suspect, as well as their clothing and other possessions, must be thoroughly searched for trace evidence.
4) Linking a Person to a Crime Scene. Perpetrators as well as victims may deposit fingerprints, gloveprints, shoeprints,
footprints, tire tracks, blood, semen, fibers, hair, bullets, cartridge cases and toolmarks at the scene. Conversely,
victims, perpetrators and even witnesses may carry glass, soil, stolen property, blood and fibers away from the
scene, and this evidence can be used to prove their presence at the scene.
5) Disproving or Supporting a Suspect’s or Witness’ Testimony. As an example, a person is accused of a hit-and-run
accident. Examination of the undercarriage of the car reveals blood and tissue. The owner claims he ran over a dog.
A species test on the blood would reveal whether or not it came from a human source.
6) Individualization of a Suspect. Fingerprints and DNA left at the scene are the most conclusive ways of individualizing
a suspect. It’s also worth remembering that at many crime scenes leaving a latent fingerprint is perhaps inherently
more likely than leaving a locatable DNA sample.
7) Providing Investigative Leads. Physical evidence can be used to productively direct the course of an investigation.
For example, a paint chip left at the scene of a hit-and-run can probably be employed to narrow down the number
and kinds of possible cars which could have left it.
The overall business of forensic science are usully broken down into the following stages:
• Recognition of physical evidence
• Documentation of the crime scene and the evidence
• Collection, preservation, inventorying, packaging, transporting and submitting the physical evidence
• Analysis
• Interpretation
• Reporting the results and expert testimony
9

10. Forensic science usually begins at the crime scene, since the bulk of the foregoing pursuits are intimately concerned with
evidence retrieved from the actual scene. Thus processing the scene is the first most important events to occur following
commission of a crime. If the case is to proceed smoothly through the adjudication stage, the processing must be done
thoroughly and correctly.
II. Securing, Evaluating and Processing the Crime Scene (this section was not covered in lectures read it
The first respondents to a forensic scene are often patrolmen. They will begin by Securing the Crime Scene. In order to
accomplish this, the first responder has these responsibilities, in the following order:
1. Initial Response. The primary concerned is safety. Secondary goals include forming a preliminary assessment of the
scene, and beginning to control it. The first responder will:
(i). Dispatch and log relevant information (address, time, date, type of call, parties and weapons involved,
etc.).
(ii). Beware of any individuals or vehicles trying to leave the scene, writing down (as soon as possible)
descriptions of both fleeing persons (height, weight, race, sex, clothing, etc.) and vehicles (make, model,
color, license plate, etc.).
(iii). Cautiously approach and scan the scene, being especially mindful of individuals and vehicles which may
be connected to the crime. The first responder should note any potential secondary crime scenes.
(iv). Ensure officer safety before proceeding. One is to assume that a crime is ongoing until he is certain
otherwise, and assume that the area is a crime scene until proven otherwise.
2. Safety Procedures. Ensuring the safety of the officers and others in the vicinity of the scene is the principal priority of
the first responder. The first responder will:
(i). Scan the area for sights, sounds and smells which would indicate imminent danger to himself and other
responders. He/she also will check for weapons.
(ii). If the scene involves hazardous materials, a clandestine drug laboratory, or chemical, radiological or
biological materials, the appropriate personnel or agency ( ie bomb squad, etc.) should be called in prior
to the scene being entered.
(iii). After a cautious approach and an initial assessment, all dangerous persons and/or escalating conflicts
are controlled and appropriate back-ups are called in. These might include other police, supervisory
personnel, etc. The safety of the officer and other parties (victims, witnesses, etc.) is the first priority.
3. Emergency Care. Once dangerous persons and situations are under control, the next priority is to provide medical
attention to injured persons, while minimizing contamination of the crime scene. The first responder will:
(i). Assess victims for signs of life and medical needs, call in medical personnel (MP)and, if warranted,
administer first aid.
(ii). When medical personnel arrive, the first responder will guide them to the victim in such a way as to
minimize scene contamination. Law enforcement personnel will point out potential physical evidence
to the medical personel, instructing them to minimize contact with such evidence. Law enforcement
officers should remain with MP, if possible.
(iii). Ensure that the MP’s preserve all clothing and personal effects, and that they do not cut through bullet
holes, knife tears, etc., in clothing.
(iv). Document how and to where medical personnel move both persons and items
(v). Instruct MP’s not to “clean up” the scene, and to avoid removing or altering items at the scene.
(vi). Obtain names, units and contact information for medical personnel.
(vii). If a victim may die, attempt to obtain a dying declaration
(viii). Document statements made by victims, witnesses or suspects.
(ix). If a victim or suspect is to be transported to a medical facility, obtain the name and address of the
facility. Send a law enforcement officer along with the victim and/or suspect in order to preserve
evidence and document any statements. If that is impossible, request medical personnel to perform the
same tasks.
4. Secure and Control Persons at the Scene. To maintain crime scene integrity, safeguard evidence and minimize
contamination, persons found at the scene must be controlled, identified and then separated and removed. The
persons who subsequently enter the scene must be thoroughly documented and quite limited in number. The first
responder will:
10

11. (i). Control individuals found at the scene, preventing them from moving about, thereby either altering or
destroying potential evidence.
(ii). Identify all witnesses, victims and suspects, then separate and secure them. Family and friends of
victims and/or suspects are first identified and then removed from the immediate area.
(iii). Exclude all nonessential personnel (law enforcement officers not working the case, media, politicians,
etc.) from the scene.
5. Identify, Establish, Protect and Secure Boundaries. A boundary is established around the scene(s), larger in scope
than the scene(s). The rationale is that the boundary can easily be reduced at any later time. But the scene cannot
later be easily enlarged since in the ensuing interval it is quite likely that the surrounding areas have been
contaminated. The responding officer will:
(i). Establish boundaries of the scene(s), starting at the focal point and radiating outward to include:
• Where the crime appears to have occurred.
• Potential points of ingress and egress.
• Places where the victim and/or evidence may have been moved from, being mindful of potential trace
and impression evidence.
(ii). Set up physical barriers (tape, cones, vehicles, etc.) around the perimeter. Armed guards are employed to
enforce the boundary demarcation.
(iii). Establish a single path into and out of the scene, making certain that no physical evidence is distributed
along the pathway
(iv). Document and control all persons and animals who enter or leave the scene.
(v). Take steps to preserve and protect physical evidence which may be lost or compromised. For example,
evidence should be protected from rain, snow, and so forth, as well as from sprinklers, footsteps, etc.
(vi). Document the original locations of persons or objects which were seen to have been moved.
(vii). Consider search and seizure issues to determine the necessity of obtaining either a consent to search
and/or a search warrant.
(viii). Ensure that persons at the scene (including law enforcement personnel) do not alter the scene in any
way. Thus, smoking, eating and drinking are not permitted. One may touch nothing. Hence, windows,
doors, thermostats and so forth are left exactly as they were. Responders cannot leave litter or other
debris.
6. Turn Over Control of the Scene and Brief the Investigator in Charge. At some point a lead investigator (or detective)
will be assigned to the case. The first responder will:
(i). Brief the lead investigator, providing a synopsis of the incident so far.
(ii). Show him the scene boundaries and the chosen path in and out of the scene.
(iii). Turn over responsibility for documenting personnel entering and exiting the scene to the lead
investigator.
(iv). Remain at the scene until formally relieved, being sure to document his own departure time.
7. Document Actions and Observations. As soon as possible, the first responder should clearly and concisely document
all his actions and observations at the scene. This is absolutely essential for preserving information which otherwise
will be forgotten, and for providing information which may substantiate or contradict later investigative leads and
theories. The documentation must be permanently preserved as a part of the case record. The first responder will:
(i). Document the state of the scene upon his arrival, including the location, condition and appearance of
people and objects.
(ii). Document existing conditions upon arrival. For example, were the lights on or off? Were doors and windows
closed, ajar or fully open? Was any furniture moved or overturned? What was the temperature and what
were the weather conditions? Were any unusual materials or odors present? Was there any deteriorating
evidence (such as tire tracks in melting snow)? Were appliances on or off? Were motor vehicles on or off? If
off, was the engine warm or cold?
(iii). Document all personal information concerning witnesses, victims and suspects, and record their actions and
statements.
(iv). Record the actions of himself as well as of other law enforcement and medical personnel. Record all
personnel who entered (and exited) the scene, their actions at the scene, and any items which may have
been moved, and by whom.
11

12. In Summary
(a) From a forensic science viewpoint, the foregoing procedures are absolutely essential as there are many steps in to e
followed which ensure that physical evidence is not lost, contaminated, or moved. That is, the physical evidence
which may be present is preserved for later identification, collection and submission. Included here are things like
demarcating the scene, and then being very selective about who is able to enter and leave it. The establishment of a
single path into and out of the scene, and subsequent insistence that all personnel use this pathway, also preserves
physical evidence. If the evidence must be moved, or is moved inadvertently, its original location is documented. This
might be important if a reconstruction is to be attempted later. By documenting all personnel at the scene, one is
anticipating not only the necessity of investigators later needing to interview these persons, but also anticipating the
need of obtaining known samples (of fingerprints, hairs or shoeprints, for example) from them at a later time. Also
by documenting all the persons who entered and left the scene, and whether or not they touched or moved any
objects, one is establishing and safeguarding the chain of custody.
(b) From a legal standpoint, one of the more interesting aspects of the foregoing procedures is the attempt to get a
dying declaration from a victim who may expire. This is because a dying declaration is one of the several exceptions
to the “Hearsay Rule”. Hearsay is second-hand evidence. In many instances, hearsay is not admissible evidence in a
court of law. The common law in the US recognized five exceptions to the Hearsay Rule. A dying declaration is one of
those five historical exceptions. So if a victim utters “John Mdoe killed me!” and then expires, that dying declaration
will be admissible evidence, even though the victim/witness has since died and cannot be cross-examined by the
opposing side.
(c) From an investigative viewpoint, it is important that all victims, suspects and witnesses be identified and then
separated. The police will later want to interview these people separately to see how their various stories may agree
or diverge. By separating them early on they are given less opportunity to “get their stories straight”.
Once a lead investigator is called to the scene it is his responsibility to direct the investigation. His first task will be to
Evaluate the Scene, particularly in order to establish whether or not the scene should be processed for physical evidence.
Not all scenes will lend themselves to an identification and collection of physical evidence. And the very costly nature of
collection and analysis may cause some jurisdictions to collect physical evidence only in instances of crimes of a more
serious nature. If the decision is made to process to the scene for collection of physical evidence, then the lead
investigator will direct and control the processing. The scene evaluation will generally proceed as follows.
1. Conduct Scene Assessment. The lead investigator will be briefed by the first responder. He will evaluate whether or
not the preliminary steps outlined above have been accomplished and, if not, he will take corrective measures.
Included would be a review (and possible modification) of things like scene demarcation; path in and out of the
scene; search and seizure issues; identification, containment and isolation of victims, witnesses and suspects; and so
on. In addition, the lead investigator will:
(i). Determine whether or not a prosecutor or other specialized legal personnel should be called to the
scene.
(ii). Establish a staging area for consultation and equipment. Of course, such an area should be near the
scene but not be a part of it.
(iii). Establish a secure area for temporary evidence storage, being mindful of environmental factors which
could degrade the evidence, as well as being cognizant of the chain of custody (which we will talk about
later). The area is secured by armed personnel.
(iv). Canvass the surrounding area looking for additional evidence, secondary crime scenes, and witnesses.
(v). Arrange for the immediate photographing of all victims, suspects and witnesses still at the scene,
especially showing any injuries (or lack thereof). Additionally, the lead investigator will arrange for the
photographing of any evidence or conditions which may be subject to imminent degradation or change.
2. Crime Scene “Walk-Through” and Initial Documentation. The lead investigator will do a quick walk-through of the
area, probably accompanied by the responding patrolman, gaining an overview of the situation. If possible, other
personnel who will later be responsible for documenting and processing the scene will also participate in the walk-
through. The goals are to:
(i). Develop a preliminary plan for a more detailed search and documentation of the scene.
12

13. (ii). Note the placement of obvious pieces of evidence.
(iii). Document the scene as it currently appears by making notes, taking preliminary photographs, making
rough sketches, etc.
(iv). Identify, document and collect any fragile or degradable evidence.
At this point the major Processing of the scene is ready to commence. This is the point where physical evidence
is first recognized (although, in fact, this may have happened already for some pieces of evidence) and then
documented. In some ways, this is where forensic science begins. However, one cannot underestimated the
importance of the previous tasks, as performed by the first responders. If the responding officer doesn’t
properly secure the scene and preserve evidence, no amount of forensics can save the case. The steps involved
in processing are as follows.
3. Determine Team Composition. The lead investigator makes certain that personnel sufficient in both number and
expertise are available for processing the scene, and that each individual is aware of his particular responsibilities.
The lead investigator will:
(i). Assess the need for additional law enforcement and/or investigative personnel, especially in light of
potential multiple scenes and/or multiple jurisdictions, multiple victims, and/or the existence of
numerous witnesses.
(ii). Assess the need for additional equipment (lighting, ladders, etc.).
(iii). Evaluate the need for specialized law enforcement personnel (CIDs) and medical personnel.
(iv). Determine if their is a need for specialized forensic personnel and/or equipment is warranted, paying
particular attention to specialized evidence collection needs (fingerprint specialist, firearms expert,
blood stains and spatter expert, trace evidence specialist, arson investigator, and so forth).
(v). Selected qualified personnel for specialized tasks, including special photography needs (underwater,
aerial, etc.) and special sketching needs.
(vi). Assign specific and specialized tasks to particular personnel, establish relative priorities, and document
all assignments. He will follow up to make sure that each assignment is being carried through.
4. Ensure Contamination Control. As evidence is identified, documented and later collected, several dangers present
themselves. First, the investigators may inadvertently contaminate the evidence, perhaps by moving it, stepping on
it, or even by depositing new material on top of it. Second, as swabs and other devices are removed from their
packaging, there is a danger that investigators will leave the packaging at the scene, thereby contaminating it. Third,
collecting biological samples potentially puts the investigator or technician at risk of contracting diseases such as
AIDs and hepatitis. Finally, if a lot of evidence will be collected there is the danger of cross-contamination between
different pieces of evidence. To alleviate these concerns the lead investigator will:
(i). Continue to make certain that nonessential personnel are not permitted within the boundary demarcating the
scene, and continue to make certain that essential personnel follow the prescribed path into and out of the
scene.
(ii). Consider collecting elimination samples from first responders, medical personnel, investigators and technicians.
Elimination samples are known samples (of fingerprints, shoeprints, hairs and so on) taken from law
enforcement and medical personnel who may inadvertently leave such evidence at the scene. Later, if a
questioned sample can be shown to trace back to such personnel, the questioned sample is considered to
have been individualized to legitimate crime scene personnel, and it need not be considered further as a
source of meaningful criminal evidence.
(iii). Designate an area well outside the scene for trash and equipment storage, and assign responsibility for trash and
equipment removal.
(iv). Assess potential biological hazards, and ensure that the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is
being employed by essential personnel. The PPE must later be properly disposed of in a biohazards container.
(v). Make sure all equipment starts clean and (if appropriate) new. Reusable equipment must be re-cleaned after
each use and again prior to storage.
(vi). Single-use equipment (scalpels, pipets, swabs, gloves, etc.) must be used for all biological evidence, and perhaps
for some other types of evidence, as well. All single-use equipment must be disposed of properly (e.g.: into a
“sharps” container) after a single use.
At this stage, the scene is ready to be Documented, meaning photographed, video (and perhaps also audio)
taped, measured and sketched. All this must be accompanied by the taking of copious notes. More than
13

14. anything else, the focus is on documenting the physical evidence found at the scene. Because the various
components of documentation are so forensically important, each will now be discussed in some detail.
III. Recognition of Physical Evidence
From the forensic science perspective, the first step in processing the scene is the recognition of the gross (or obvious)
pieces of physical evidence. Actually, this process starts almost as soon as the first responder appears on the scene, and
is an ongoing task throughout the early stages of the investigation. By the time the scene is ready to be processed, many
of the more obvious pieces of physical evidence will have been discovered. Many more pieces may be unearthed later,
but one must at least recognize the major items at the outset so that they can be documented.
This recognition is largely a matter of experience. On the one hand, if every object which is simply present at the scene is
documented, collected and sent for analysis, the result would be overwhelming, immobilizing and chaotic. On the other
hand, if important evidence is not collected, the case might never be prosecuted successfully.
As early as his walk-through, the lead investigator will probably start imagining several scenarios whereby the crime may
have been committed. Then he will focus on what sorts of physical evidence would be expected under each of these
scenarios. Evidence is then selected in order to validate, refute or distinguish among these several possibilities. In order
for this to be meaningful the lead investigator must be aware of what information later analyses might be expected to
reveal, particularly recalling the individualization and reconstruction goals of the forensic scientist. It is not always
possible to precisely reconstruct a crime, and it is not always feasible to completely individualize a sample, but in both
instances it is almost always possible to limit the possibilities. To cite an example, suppose two bodies are discovered,
each with a single bullet wound. Also suppose that a firearm is resting very near one of the bodies. Is this a double
murder, a double suicide, or a murder-suicide? The lead investigator will focus on looking for evidence which would
indicate one or the other of these, and also evidence which would distinguish one from the other. Thus, he may direct
that the hands of each corpse be swabbed to test for gunpowder residue. If both corpse’s hands have such residue, the
double-suicide theory is indicated. If one corpse’s hands evidence residue, but the other’s are clean, then the evidence
points to murder-suicide. The absence of any such residue would lend support to the double murder scenario.
Also, the investigator must know what type of physical evidence is required to successfully prosecute a particular case. As
was noted before, for instance, a charge of rape can generally be sustained only if evidence of penetration is found in the
lab. In short, there is no substitute for patience, knowledge and selectivity.
Because recognition of physical evidence is an art form, many police departments employ specialized evidence retrieval
technicians. We have previously noted that the FBI maintains ERT’s, and the GBI has its own equivalent CSS’s. However,
in most cases these specialized units must be called in by the local authorities. As mentioned previously, it is far more
common that the police on the scene are responsible for evidence recognition, documentation and collection, although
many larger departments do have specialized evidence retrieval technicians. Here again it is important to recall that no
amount of later forensic analysis can overcome mistakes made by these individuals at the scene.
IV. Documenting the Scene and the Evidence
Documentation is crucial from both legal and scientific standpoints. From the legal perspective, maintaining the chain of
custody will demand that nothing be altered prior to its being documented. If items have been moved, either out of
exigency or inadvertently, then it is necessary that their original location, as well as the circumstances which led to their
having been moved, be documented. Also, the chain of custody will require documenting who discovered an item of
evidence, when it was discovered, its appearance, and who took control of it.
Even in a case where a suspect has been arrested and confessed, the documentation step cannot be skipped. In just such
cases an attorney may later claim that investigators unfairly focused on his client, that the confession was coerced, that
other suspects could have been identified from the evidence at the scene had it only been processed, that lack of
documentation is a reflection of generally inadequate or unfair investigative techniques, etc. In short, there is no such
thing as an open-and-shut case in the early stages. Further, documentation will be required for presentation at trial in
order to describe the crime scene and the location and condition of physical evidence retrieved form it.
From a scientific standpoint, documentation later helps the analyst understand the relation of the evidence to the
overall scene, and may suggest what types of analyses to perform on the evidence.
14

15. As was mentioned previously, the lead investigator should have already developed several hypotheses about what may
have occurred. The investigator or evidence technician then goes about documenting what facts tend to corroborate,
refute and distinguish among these various hypotheses. The investigator or technician will also have to anticipate various
questions that may arise later and be willing to look for evidence which bears on the answers to these questions. The
working hypotheses may well have to be modified as time goes on, but they at least allow for order to develop out of
what otherwise might be chaos. Thus, the lead investigator or evidence technician is as much an interpreter as he is an
observer and recorder.
As mentioned above, several different means of documentation are available including notes, sketches, photographs,
and audio and video recording. These are mutually complementary and should all be used in most circumstances.
Notes
These constitute the core of the crime scene and physical evidence documentation. They must be made in ink in a bound
notebook, the pages of which have been previously numbered sequentially. Errors should never be corrected by erasure
or by removal of pages, but by marking through the errors with a pen followed by entry of the corrected information.
Likewise, no blank spaces should be left for observations or conclusions to be inserted later. All notations must be
recorded in a strictly chronological order. All these requirements help to avoid later allegations of tampering or
“fudging”.
Note-taking must be a constant and ongoing activity. It starts with the first responding officer, who must log such issues
as time and place of arrival, appearance of the scene, names and addresses of persons present, and so on. Even medical
personnel must keep logs of their activities at the scene. The notes will document the location and overall appearance of
the scene. Any transient evidence (sounds, smells, etc.) will be mentioned, as will any departures from usual procedures.
All evidence which is observed must be documented in the notes. Its condition, time of discovery, name of discoverer,
placement, collection, packaging and labeling must be described, as must its eventual disposition. This may be done is a
separate evidence log. Further, every photograph which is taken must be documented in the notes, including roll and
frame numbers, date, time, subject matter, location, camera settings, specialized lighting or film, etc. Sometimes such
information is included in a separate photography log. The notes are the principal way of jogging one’s memory months
or years later, and must by sufficiently detailed for this purpose. Additionally, the notes must document and prove the
chain of custody.
It is possible to use an audio recorder as an adjunct to written notes if available. Alternatively, one may simply narrate
during videotaping. The advantage is that a lot of detail can be included without the cumbersome task of having to write
it all down at the moment. However, soon after leaving the crime scene the audio notes must be transcribed and then
stitched together with the original written notes to produce a new and complete set of written notes. It is essential the
both the original written notes and the audio tape be preserved as evidence.
It is the written notes that tie together the other forms of documentation. During subsequent hours, days and weeks the
notes may reflect changes in the working hypotheses, a narrowing of the focus to a single hypothesis, additional forensic
observations, and finally a theory of the crime.
Sketches
The purpose of sketches is to accurately record the spatial relationships among salient objects at the scene. Significant
dimensions must be accurately determined with a tape measure and incorporated into the sketches. The sketches
produced at the scene are known as rough (or preliminary) sketches. They need not be accurately drawn nor to scale,
but they must contain all the information necessary to allow an accurate rendering later on. In particular, the sketch must
evince
(i). A case identifier
(ii). Date, time and location
(iii). Weather and lighting conditions
(iv). Identity and assignments of personnel
(v). Dimensions and layout of rooms, furniture, doors, windows, skid marks, etc.
(vi). Measurements showing location of evidence; each object should be located by two measurements from
immovable objects such as doors, walls, corners, mile posts and other road signs, manhole covers, other
15

16. fixed landmarks, etc. In this way, triangulation can later be used to accurately fix the position of every
salient object.
(vii). Key or legend (identifying objects which are given alphanumeric designations in the actual sketch),
compass orientation, and a scale (or a scale disclaimer)
Taking photographs does not alleviate the need to make sketches. First, photographs produce a false sense of
perspective and do not ordinarily allow for accurate dimensions and spatial relationships to be determined later. Another
advantage of sketches over photography is that they permit the emphasizing of the most relevant objects and features
and allow for omission of the remainder. On the other hand, a photograph will include all objects present, whether they
are pertinent or not.
Much later, especially as the adjudication stage nears, a professional will prepare finished sketches based on the
information contained in the rough sketches. The finished sketches will be suitable for courtroom presentation. In the
most elaborate instances, the computer program are available can be used which allow one to zero in on certain rooms
or areas, with icons representing bodies, firearms, blood spatters, and so on. At trial the sketches can either be blown up
and printed for viewing by the judge and jury, or the entire file can be loaded on a computer and projected for viewing in
the courtroom.
Photographs
Photography, particularly with a 35 mm camera, is unsurpassed in recording vast amounts of intricate detail.
Unfortunately, photography is often underutilized (probably because it has the unfounded reputation of being relatively
expensive) or misused (because of inadequate training of personnel). Aerial shots can succinctly summarize the entire
scene in a most comprehensive manner.
• Long shots depict the area(s) where the crime occurred, as well as surrounding areas, points of ingress and egress,
etc.
• Medium shots show the gross location of evidentiary items and their relationship to one another and to the entire
scene. In addition, if the crime was indoors, all walls, ceilings and floors of the room and of any adjacent rooms are
photographed. If a body is present, it is photographed from medium range to show its relationship to other
elements. Once the body is removed, the area under it is photographed. Medium-range shots are taken of things like
crowds and vehicles, also. It is also wise to take photographs from different angles and perspectives. For instance,
medium-range photos are taken from the victim’s viewpoint, and then from a witness’ viewpoint, etc.
• Close-ups are used to provide details of each object of evidence, including wounds, weapons, cartridges, etc. Close-
ups are also taken of each victim, suspect and witness. Close-ups should contain at least one scale (use a measurable
tape, ruler) , and preferable two scales held at right angles to one another, and also should show an evidence
identifier.The scale(s) establish the proper dimension(s) of the object later. Afterward, the same evidence is often re-
photographed without the scale(s) and identifiers. It may be necessary to take several shots of the same object
under different lighting conditions and perhaps even using different film types.
Digital cameras, while expensive, also show immediate results. They also possess the additional advantage that several
still shots can be stitched together electronically to form a 3-D panoramic view of the scene. However, the resolution of
digital cameras is not as good as analog 35 mm cameras, and the digital image is much easier to manipulate. This can lead
to charges of tampering. Thus digital cameras may become increasingly used to augment analog cameras, but it is
doubtful they will replace them entirely, at least in the immediate future.
Photographs must be taken while the scene is pristine (untouched). Unless injured parties must first be moved, all items
must be in their original, undisturbed states in the photos. If items are removed or added, or if their spatial relationships
have been otherwise altered, the photos may not be admissible evidence. If it happens that evidence has been moved
prior to taking a photo, that fact must be mentioned in the notes. It is not permissible to later reintroduce or shift any
previously moved or altered objects for purposes of taking a picture.
Just as audio recording can be used as an adjunct to written notes, video recording may be used to complement still
photography. A video is perhaps the best way to document the overall, gross record of the scene; it gives a good picture
of the “lay of the land” and aids in understanding the relationships of various pieces of evidence to each other and to the
scene. The video camera is also a superb method of documenting the investigation and evidence collection process, and
provides a very convenient way of documenting the sequence and locations of the still photos. As an added benefit, the
audio track can simultaneously record a running narrative. Finally, forensic scientists (who frequently are not present at
the scene) often find a video allows them to understand the scene very well at a later time. But it is important to
remember that the resolution of a videotape is considerably poorer than that of 35 mm film, so the former can never
replace the latter as a means of recording detail.
16

17. V. Systematic Search for Evidence
Obvious pieces of physical evidence are documented at the outset of the investigation. Subsequently the entire scene
must be methodically searched in order to glean less obvious but pertinent pieces of physical evidence. It will be the lead
investigator who coordinates the search. The question of how to search, while important, is perhaps secondary to the
issue of what is being searched for.
The scene is searched by employing a search pattern. Common patterns recommended is
• Spiral (or Concentric) (either from inside-out or outside-in)
• Grid (go N-S first, then E-W, for example)
• Strip (or Line) (N-S or E-W only, for example)
• Zone (or Quadrant) (one searcher per several equal-size areas)
The suspected points of ingress and egress must also be searched.
Regardless of which search pattern may be selected, the search must be prioritized. Safety, weather, security and traffic
may dictate that some areas be searched first while others can wait. In the same way, evidence which is transient or
fragile will have to be collected first, being cautious to not disturb other evidence which may be nearby. If chemical
agents (such as fingerprint powder or luminol) are to be used, certain other evidence (which might be contaminated by
the chemical agents) must be collected first. Finally, the lead investigator must be cognizant of the need to employ
special techniques (alternative lighting, chemical enhancement of stains, etc.) and highly trained personnel (blood spatter
analysts, projectile trajectory analysts, etc.), and that these techniques and personnel may further restrict the order in
which evidence is documented and collected.
VI. Collect, Preserve, Inventory, Package, Transport and Submit the Physical Evidence (CPIPTP)
Once evidence is located and its discoverer, time of discovery, location and appearance have been thoroughly
documented, then it is time to collect and preserve the evidence, inventory it, and then package it in preparation for
sending it to the crime lab. Exactly how this is accomplished depends on the type of evidence.
Impression evidence (tire tracks, footprints, toolmarks, latent fingerprint, palmprints, and so forth) is often developed or
enhanced by use of specialized photographic techniques (alternative light sources and filters) and/or by application of
chemical developers (fingerprint powder, ninhydrin, silver nitrate, etc.). Collection may be accomplished by photography,
physical lifting (as with tape for fingerprints, gel lifters for bite marks, molding materials for tire impressions, etc.), or by
actually taking the entire item upon which the evidence has been deposited.
Biological evidence will often be located visually, and sometimes will have to be enhanced and/or developed via chemical
means (luminol, presumptive tests for blood, semen, etc.). Single-use equipment (swabs and gauze) can be used to
sample stains. Alternatively, dried stains can be scraped (with a scalpel, perhaps). The entire item evidencing the stain
(clothing, door, etc.) can be taken, or a portion of the staining can simply be cut out of the object using a scalpel.
Arson, explosion and bomb evidence is located visually and also by smell. Ignitable liquids are removed with shovels.
Burned materials (or portions thereof) are removed from the suspected point of origin of the blaze or blast. Ignition
devices, fuses and exploded bomb components are simply taken in toto.
Trace evidence is collected by manual means (forceps, tweezers, gloved hand), scraping, taping and/or vacuuming. As a
last resort, the entire item containing the evidence can be removed.
Chemicals and controlled substances are located by visual observation (drug , pipes, etc.), by use of field (or presumptive)
tests, by drug detecting animals, and by odor. The items are generally removed in their entirety.
It must be recognized that some evidence is microscopic and cannot be detected visually by personnel at the scene.
Minute droplets of blood on clothing is an example. Thus, likely carriers of such evidence (such as the clothing of all
17

18. victims and suspects) must be collected. Also, the undersides of all fingernails should be scraped using a toothpick or
other dull instrument for possible blood and tissue evidence. When feasible, areas of the crime scene should be
vacuumed and the collected evidence submitted for hair and fiber analysis; different areas are vacuumed separately
and the debris collected is likewise submitted separately.
It is during this stage that one must be very mindful to not only document and collect questioned samples but also known
samples and elimination samples. For instance, if a victim is found to have soil on his clothing, it should be sampled.
However, at the same time it is essential to take several known soil samples from various areas of the scene. Similarly, if
blood spatters are discovered they will be sampled. It is just as important that a known sample be taken from the victim
and, perhaps later, from any suspects. If DNA analysis is to be performed on questioned blood or semen, it is generally
sufficient to use a buccal swab to obtain a known sample of the DNA of the victim or suspect. Finally, hair and fiber
samples from victims and suspects must be taken for later comparison with questioned hairs and fibers that may have
been retrieved via vacuuming the scene. All this points there must be a very close cooperation between all investigators.
If a victim is autopsied, the Medical expert (ME) will automatically collect organ and tissue samples for pathological
and/or forensic analysis into the cause of death. In addition, blood samples will be taken, especially for running
toxicology scans. Investigators will have to be in contact with the ME to obtain samples of
• Clothing
• Fingernail scrapings
• Head and pubic hairs
• Blood
• Vaginal, anal and oral swabs (for sex crimes)
• Bullets from the body
• Hand swabs from shooting victims (for gunshot residue)
It is, of course, considerably more difficult to obtain all these samples once the body has been buried. Additionally, as
time progresses defense attorneys can argue that the original evidence has become tainted or otherwise altered over
time
Substrate control samples
It is also imperative to document and take substrate controls when sampling some types of evidence. Suppose there is a
blood droplet on a piece of clothing. The questioned blood is sampled. But other unstained areas of the clothing should
also be sampled; these are the substrate controls. In the lab it will be necessary to prove that the questioned sample
tests positive for the presence of human blood. But it will be just as important to show that the substrate controls all test
negative for the existence of human blood, thereby indicating that the positive test derived from the questioned sample
was not a “false positive” somehow induced by the properties of the cloth (or substrate) upon which the blood droplet
was deposited.
One must also be mindful to collect electronically recorded evidence from the scene or the general vicinity of the scene if
this is possible. Answering machine tapes, voice mail messages, computers, cell phones, fax machines and the videotapes
from nearby surveillance cameras all may contain important clues and should be documented and taken.
Evidence of substantial size should be marked directly with the case identifier, the collector’s name (or initials), time and
date, and other salient features. Often all evidence collected is described in an evidence log, wherein it is given a unique
identifier (e.g.: ... 14. Rectal swab from victim. 15. Vaginal swab from victim. 16. Mouth swab from victim...). It is then
packaged; the same sorts of information used to mark the sample should also be used to mark the packaging. For smaller
samples (such as trace evidence), the sample itself cannot be marked. Therefore a sketch and description should be
entered into the notes or evidence log, and then the sample is packaged; the pertinent information is simply recorded on
the package itself rather than directly on the evidence. All these details must be described in the notes.
The type of packaging depends on the evidence itself. The primary goals are protection of the evidence and preservation
of its integrity. One must particularly prevent breakage, damage, evaporation, loss and cross-contamination. Screw-cap
glass vials, plastic pill bottles, and manilla envelopes can all be used for a variety objects such as paint chips, glass
fragments, soil samples, hairs, fibers, powders, etc. For liquid samples it is crucial that evaporation be retarded. For small
samples, screw-cap glass bottles are satisfactory. For larger samples (such as charred wood suspected of containing
traces of an accelerant, like might be collected from an arson scene), the sample can be put into a new one- or five-gallon
paint can and then sealed. Clothing can be put into large paper sacks.
18

19. Blood is of special concern because it so commonly found at crime scenes and because its improper handling can be
disastrous. If moist blood is placed in an airtight container, mold and mildew may grow, and this taints the evidentiary
value of the sample. If the blood is wet it can be swabbed and then the swab permitted to dry. The swab can then be
placed in a manilla envelope. Alternatively, the blood can be allowed to air dry. Dried blood is usually sampled by
scraping; it may then be put into a manilla envelope. Wet clothing (whether the moisture is due to blood or otherwise) is
treated similarly, excepting that it is usually placed into large paper sacks. No folding of clothing is usually permitted, as
this may potentially cause cross-transfer of trace evidence from one area of the garment to another.
Generally, it is often best to take samples in their native condition. For example, bloodstains, semen stains and soil stains
on a garment may not be swabbed or scraped; instead, the whole garment could be dried and then submitted. In this
way, other trace evidence which may be present will also be available for the forensic examiner. There are many
instances where significant portions of structures (doors and pieces of drywall and floor, for example) are removed and
sent in their entirety to the lab. And it is very common that an entire car will be submitted, especially in cases of hit-and-
run, homicide, etc. For many types of evidence, only if the questioned sample is adhering to an impossibly large structure
will it be removed (with forceps or other appropriate tools) and submitted separately from the structure on which it was
found.
As evidence is collected at the scene, it is removed and store temporarily in a separate, secured evidence collection area,
which is constantly guarded. Once all the evidence is collected, it is ready to be transported and submitted to the crime
lab or to an evidence storage area maintained by the police.
Evidence may be submitted to the crime lab either via mail or by personal delivery. The latter method is usually chosen if
the case is urgent and if the laboratory is not too far away. It should be noted that various mail and parcel carriers have
special regulations that may apply to evidence from a crime scene. Etiological agents (viable microorganisms and their
associated toxins, which can cause disease in humans) should be shipped in specially marked and constructed containers
via registered mail.
Laboratories will require that an evidence submission form accompany all shipments. Included will be such obvious things
as the submitter’s name and a case number, a list of the items sent as well as a unique alphanumeric identifier for each,
what analyses are requested for each, and a brief case history. The items themselves are packed separately. The
criminalist may well need to perform analyses is addition to the ones requested, especially in light of new developments
in the case or as a result of previous tests. On the other hand, the analyst may decide that the requested examinations
are impossible or unlikely to be beneficial. In short, the analyst is not bound by the submitter’s requests for particular
examinations.
VII. Chain of Custody
At the adjudication stage, all evidence will be subject to questions regarding the maintenance of the chain of custody.
This refers to the prosecution’s need to completely account for the discovery, collection, analysis, storage and transfer of
the evidence during the entire time between its original finding during the crime scene processing through adjudication
(negotiations/settlements) , and even through possible subsequent appeals.
The chain of custody starts with the original discoverer. This is one of several major reasons why evidence must not be
moved prior to its documentation and retrieval. If the evidence is moved prior to its documentation, and if all the facts
surrounding that movement are not documented completely in the notes, than the chain of custody has been broken,
potentially rendering the evidence tainted, even useless. The chain of custody is also part of the reason why, when
possible, evidence is sent in “large chunks” with identifying marks (such as the collector’s name or initials, date, and
description) directly on it, rather than by cutting out or removing smaller portions which cannot be labeled individually.
The case identifier and other pertinent information listed on packaging materials holding the evidence provides yet
another means of trying to document the chain of custody. In the end, one of the most important ways the chain is
preserved is by making certain the notes completely document everything that happens to each piece of evidence at the
scene, all the way from its discovery to the point where it is sent to the lab.
Some jurisdictions have developed special chain of custody forms which accompany each piece of evidence. The form
shows who received the item, and when, and to whom they relinquished it, and when.
The chain continues when the evidence is shipped to the crime lab. The evidence submission form is an integral part of
the chain, describing the items sent and identifiers for each object.
19

20. Failure at any stage to properly document who has possession of the evidence and what they did with it (and when) can
lead to the tainting of the evidence and its exclusion from a subsequent trial. Because every person who has handled the
evidence must be able to show an unbroken chain of custody, it is wise to keep the number of such persons to an absolute
minimum.
Physical Evidence Analysis, Interpretation and Reporting
In the preceeding sections we defined physical evidence as any and all relevant materials or objects associated with a
crime. Such evidence is real, direct and non-circumstantial. Physical evidence can be collected at the scene of a crime, on
the person of a victim, suspect or witness, or from an area (car, home, job site, etc.) associated with a victim, suspect or
witness. Additionally, we broke the overall business of forensic science down into the following six stages:
• Recognition of physical evidence
• Documentation of the crime scene and the evidence
• Collection, preservation, inventorying, packaging, transporting and submitting the physical evidence
• Analysis
• Interpretation
• Reporting the results and expert testimony
We addressed the first three of these activities previously. In this section we focus on the remaining three aspects, all of
which intimately involve criminalists.
Classification of Physical Evidence
Evidences arrives at a crime lab either by mail or hand delivery. In either case, an evidence submission form should
accompany the evidence. This form should describe the crime which occurred, the individual pieces being submitted, and
what analyses are requested for each. The evidence submission form is an important element in the chain of custody.
One advantage to the hand delivery method is that the criminalists can ask the delivering officer intimate questions
associated with the investigation of the scene and case. This can help to suggest a different analytic approach than that
requested on the original evidence submission form. In any case the criminalist is not bound to analyze the evidence in
the manner requested on the form if he feels another approach would be more enlightening or if he feels the original
request is impossible or unlikely to be of value.
From the analyst’s point of view, perhaps the best way to begin analysing the evidence would be to try to classify the
evidence one is presented with. There are a number of possible classification schemes, no one of which is best under all
circumstances and each of which may be useful at times. Included would be classification according to the
• Type of Crime
• Type of Material
• General Nature of the Evidence
• Physical State of the Evidence
• Type of Question to be Resolved
• Way the Evidence was Produced
• Appropriate Laboratory Approach
Classification by the Type of Crime
Here one would think of there being homicide evidence, rape evidence, burglary evidence, and so forth. This can be
useful as a way of reminding an investigator to be sure to check for certain items at a particular kind of scene. For
example, in a homicide one would be certain to check for blood, firearms, ammunition and cartridges, other weapons,
fibers, hairs, etc. The problem with this approach is that it is self-limiting. Almost any kind of evidence can be an element
of almost any crime. Blood evidence, e.g. can be associated with assault, rape and burglary almost as frequently as it can
be with homicide, and semen evidence, which is important in a rape case, may just as well be present at a homicide
scene. While there is some correlation between the type of crime and the type of evidence, the correlation is usually
imperfect and should not be relied upon too heavily. Unexpected and unpredictable pieces of evidence might be quite
important in solving a particular case; yet these sorts of things would be most likely overlooked by someone who simply
memorized a “checklist” to go through for the particular type of crime which occurred.
20