- Email: [email protected]
Forensic pedology, forensic geology, forensic geoscience, geoforensics and soil forensics
Forensic Science International 202 (2010) 9–12
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Forensic Science International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forsciint
Review
Forensic pedology, forensic geology, forensic geoscience, geoforensics and soil forensics Alastair Ruffell * School of Geography, Archaeology & Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast, Elmwood Avenue, Belfast BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 15 February 2010 Received in revised form 30 March 2010 Accepted 31 March 2010 Available online 28 April 2010
We now have a confusing set of five commonly used terms for the application of Earth evidence in forensic science. This confusion is resulting in Earth scientists who use these methods mentioning different terms, sometimes for the same type of study. Likewise, forensic scientists, police/law enforcement officers and those employed by courts of law are becoming confused as to what each term means. A nomenclatural framework (based on the first use of each term) is proposed to encourage consistency in the use of terminology. Generally, the number of Earth science applications has grown through time, from soil and sediment analysis to remote sensing and GIS. The issue of where forensic biology and microbiology sits with these uses of Earth evidence is considered. ß 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Forensic pedology Forensic geology Forensic geoscience Geoforensics Soil forensics Environmental forensics
Contents 1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. Early work (pre-2003) . . . . . . . . . 1.2. Recent developments (post-2003) Forensic pedology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forensic geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forensic geoscience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geoforensics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil forensics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental forensics . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion and summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Introduction For forensic scientists and geologists/geoscientists alike, there are now a number of confusing terms for the application of these disciplines to forensic science (cf. criminalistics in some countries). Historically these include Forensic Pedology (soil science); Forensic Geology; Forensic Geoscience; Geoforensics, Soil Forensics and Environmental Forensics. Rather than attempt a standardisation or introduce a new, less-confusing overall term, this article uses an
* Tel.: +44 28 90973407; fax: +44 2890321280. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0379-0738/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.03.044
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
.. 9 .. 9 . 10 . 10 . 10 . 10 . 11 . 11 . 11 . 11 . 11 . 11
analysis of what the originator(s) of each term included in their overt or implicit definition to define what is included, and thus inform what term is most appropriate. This work is not intended to be a review of the use of soils, geology and Earth science in forensics; hence publications that do not ascribe a name to the study undertaken are not dealt with in detail. It is clarification of what each name or term means that this work seeks to achieve. 1.1. Early work (pre-2003) Early work on, and mentions of, the use of Earth materials in forensic science concern sediment and soil. It is thus rather perverse that a mention of sediment forensics has never been
10
A. Ruffell / Forensic Science International 202 (2010) 9–12
made and soil forensics has only recently been used. The Scientific American (1856 [1]) records perhaps the earliest use of sediment analysis in forensics, whereby Christian Ehrenberg, the famous Berlin professor was asked to analyse some sand. This had been recovered from barrels that were supposed to contain silver coins, yet somewhere along the railway between their origin and destination a classic case of substitution had occurred: the coins were replaced by sand. Ehrenberg had sand collected from each stop the train had made and indicated the station where the swop had been made. Interviews by the police established a possible suspect, who confessed. The subsequent stories of Arthur Conan Doyle (1887–1907 [2]), and criminal cases of Hans Gross (1962 [3]), Georg Popp (1910 [4], 1939 [5]), Oscar Heinrich (active in the 1920s and 1930s, see [6]) and Edmond Locard, established the study of soil, sediment, landforms as useful in forensic science and criminal investigations. None of the above authors created a term for their work, as they were investigators first and foremost, using all the evidence available, as opposed to Earth scientists, who have created the problem of nomenclature this article seeks to address. Forensic work on soil and sediment continued through the interwar years and between 1945 and 1960s: the FBI (starting in the 1930s), Camps (1962 [7]) used soil and sediment in cases of comparison/exclusion, intelligence gathering and substitution. None of these authors/workers used a term for their work; only Brooks and Newton (1969 [8]) used a phrase and called their work ‘forensic pedology’ (see below). Through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s work was carried out on soil for exclusionary/comparative forensic work at the FBI laboratories, the UK’s defence laboratory (Aldermaston), in police laboratories in Germany, France and the United Kingdom, amongst others. Consequently, a review of the literature from 1965 to 2000 in Murray’s [9] bibliography shows 24 articles on the use of soil and/or sediment in criminal investigations. Critically for this review however, none of these authors proffered a name for what they were doing: most were mentioned by the name of the technique (colour, density gradient column) as applied to soil or used the word soil as the material to be analysed. As we will see (below) it was in 1968 (forensic pedology), 1975 (forensic geology), 2002/2004 (forensic geoscience), 2008 (geoforensics and soil forensics) that a series of names appeared for such work, that has led to the current confusion this article aims to clarify. 1.2. Recent developments (post-2003) Since 2003 there have been specialist forensic geology/ geoscience/soil meetings throughout the world, including three sessions of the Geological Society of America (Philadelphia, 2006; Denver, 2007; Houston, 2008) and a public forum at the annual meetings of the Geological Society of America (Denver, 2007), four meetings of the Geological Society (London, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008) and two entitled ‘International Soil Forensics’ (Australia, 2006; Scotland, 2007). Further meetings of all these groups are planned, suggesting that the use of different geoscience methods, Earth materials and soil analysis are important to forensic science. This contention is supported by the number of books published in this area [9–14] as well as articles in the forensic science literature (see reference list). The volume of meetings and publications appears to be good news for both non-forensic Earth science specialists wishing to apply their knowledge to a new arena, as well as forensic scientists looking for evidence or conducting searches. However, many of the above meetings and publications have used different titles for their works, creating confusion amongst both specialists and would-be users (investigators). The current titles include (amongst others): forensic pedology; forensic geology; forensic geoscience; geoforensics; soil forensics; environmental forensics. At the International Crime Science Confer-
ence (British Library, July, 2009) one of the authors of this work copresented a paper on forensic geology [15] in which they outlined the above problem of too many names and considered two solutions. First would be to abandon all previous names and provide one, suitable, all-encompassing, neutral term that carries no previous meaning (e.g. Earth forensics). The second solution is to ensure that the origin and meaning of the various terms is explained clearly in a mainstream scientific journal and that the names are used appropriately. As each of the names does have a distinct application and pedigree, this latter solution is preferred. This work sets out to define and explain each of the commonly encountered names, such that both specialists and non-specialists alike can speak a common language and avoid misunderstanding. 2. Forensic pedology Although the famous forensic practitioners like Ehrenberg, Gross, Popp, Locard and Heinrich (see [10,12,13]) all use the word soil (the scientific study of soil being pedology) and either mention possible applications or detail actual cases, none of them applied a direct name for, what was back in the late 1800s to mid-1900s, a specialized study. Even in 1967, when the above workers had achieved numerous successes with the forensic/legal study of soil and sediment, the classic textbook of it’s day [16] did include much on soil analysis and geology, but again no name was applied. With the publication of Brooks and Newton’s (1969 [8]) ‘forensic pedology’ article, so a named sub-discipline in the forensic sciences was established. Brooks and Newton’s article effectively preempted later authors (see below) in summarising how variable the mineralogy of sediment and soils is, and how this may lead to a soil or sediment having a unique, or almost unique identity. This makeup could then be used to compare, or better exclude, soil or sediment from questioned (e.g. a suspect or deceased victim) to a location of a scene of crime. 3. Forensic geology When the first use of forensic geology [11] was made in a widely accessible publication, the authors were referring largely to the methods of geological analysis of soil and sediment analysis, rather than the historic precedence in the type of material (soil) being analysed. Thus in later definitions of forensic geology, Murray [9] is at liberty to mention the methods of geophysics, as indeed this is what they are—methods of analysing Earth materials for assisting criminal investigations. However, the core methods referred to by Murray and Tedrow (1975 [11]) and Murray (2004 [9]) are those of soil and sediment description and analysis by petrography and mineralogy. Forensic geology should thus be used when description by hand specimen, light microscope and petrographic microscope is being made of soil, sediment and contained geological materials (e.g. fossils). In addition, grain size, sorting, grain shape and grain surface are included in the descriptive aspects of forensic geology. Forensic geology also includes analysis of mineralogy (thin section petrography, X-ray diffraction), particle size (by sieving and weighing) and chemistry (including XRF, ICP, FTIR, microprobe, amongst others). Pye [12] sticks very much to this clear and precise definition, with further case studies and more detail on analytical methods such as geochemistry and SEM. 4. Forensic geoscience The first published use of this term was in websites containing information for, and an edited book resulting from, a conference organized at the Geological Society of London in 2002 (papers from this meeting published in Pye and Croft’s edited book [10]. The
A. Ruffell / Forensic Science International 202 (2010) 9–12
organizers had correctly gauged the interest such a meeting would generate, as the meeting ran to a programme over two days, and included far more than routine applications (e.g. the use of mud on someone’s shoe being used is exclusionary or associative evidence). Although the various papers within [10] do indeed have such soil and sediment analysis at their core. Geophysics, bedrock geology, microfossils and microorganisms, statistics and the geological analysis of unusual materials (e.g. spacecraft surfaces) were included, hence the use of ‘geoscience’ in the title. Simultaneously to the editing of [10], Elsevier Europe commissioned the writing of an all-encompassing article on all aspects of the application of geological and geoscience methods to forensic science [17]. These authors included remote sensing, GIS (geographic information systems), as well as the varied methods and applications contained in [10] in their article. To summarise, the most-widely accessible publications that can assist us in providing guidance on the most appropriate use of this term are [10,17]. Neither of these works contradict each other, and demonstrate that forensic geoscience has its pedigree in forensic geology but also includes geophysics, bedrock geology, hydrodynamics, GIS, geostatistics as well as some specialist analytical techniques including bone taphonomy, isotope analysis and the SEM-microprobe method of QemScan. 5. Geoforensics As a term, this was first used to name a commercial consultancy named geoforensics, and used in a publication by [13] to encompass all that had gone before (pedology, geology, geoscience) but also include geomorphology, geography, geostatistics, remote sensing, human geography/sociology. Just as Pye and Croft [10] used ‘forensic geoscience’ and included more disciplines (detailed chapters on geophysics, unusual applications [e.g. spacecraft surfaces], statistics) than in [9], so Ruffell and McKinley [13] expanded forensic geoscience even further, with chapters on remote sensing, geomorphology and GIS, some applied to human geography and sociology. Thus, through the evolution of these three books [9,10,13], we may observe an increasing number of the sub-disciplines of the Earth (and related) sciences being included. This pattern could continue, as [13] allude to the possible future inclusion of atmospheric particles as a tool in the forensic arena. 6. Soil forensics This was first used to provide a name for a meeting (2006) in Australia of that name, and has assumed a published status with [14]. Thus we see the circle completed, with the first named use [8] of soil in forensics some 40 years ago and the value of soil still at the heart of using Earth materials in criminal and related (e.g. environmental, humanitarian) investigations. As mentioned in Section 1, this is probably the most-widely known application of Earth materials in forensic science, yet, apart from Brooks and Newton’s [8] use of forensic pedology, is the most recent to have a clear, tangible definition [14]. This is excellent, as it includes all the methods of geological, geoscientific and geoforensic analysis, but applied to soil. Thus water, sediment and topography are not directly included. Pye [12] also used soil evidence in his title, as many of the sophisticated methods of analysis he describes for sediments are applied very well to the inorganic as well (less so) to the organic portions of soil. 7. Environmental forensics The most eloquent definition of this name may be found in the journal of the same name [18] and applies to all scientific studies of the environmental impact of human activities and natural
11
disasters. This most usually involves the impact of pollutants on the environment and involves the Earth sciences where remote sensing is used to monitor vegetation, geophysics to define areas of pollution, geochemistry to detect anomalous chemicals, amongst many others. Debates concerning climate and sea-level change, as well as the damage caused, will undoubtedly result in legal action in the future, when this term will become even more widely used. 8. Discussion and summary Specific applications of science or Earth science to forensics are easier to define than the more general terms (above). If only one method or material is being discussed, then its use can be defined very simply, examples being forensic geophysics, remote sensing, petrography or micropalaeontology. Far harder to define is the use of biological (non fossilised) materials in forensics, this being an essential part of the Earth systems discussed above, and included in all of the terms discussed. However, the study of microbiological (spores, pollen, algae) and macrobiological (skeletal remains) materials is a far larger part of forensics than can be included in any of the ‘geo’ or soil words, and thus will remain a complimentary name such as ‘microbioforensics’. To summarise, this work provides the following definitions for specialists and nonspecialists alike to consider using, such that confusion may be avoided. Forensic pedology: the study of soil, both in situ as a natural material possibly disrupted by unusual events, or as a transferred material on suspects, victims and associated items (tyres, vehicles). Forensic geology: the use of geological methods and materials in the analysis of samples and places that maybe connected with criminal behaviour [9,10,19] or disasters. Geology in this sense encompasses geological methods of analysis (geophysics, petrography, geochemistry, microscopy, micropalaeontology). Forensic geoscience: encompasses forensic geology and forensic pedology, as well as unusual applications such as statistics and bedrock geology. Geoforensics: encompasses forensic pedology, Geology, forensic geoscience and includes geomorphology, GIS, remote sensing, human geography (including sociology) and geostatistics. Soil forensics: includes all the methods available to study the use of soil in forensics, meaning not only the study of soil (Pedology) but also the methods outlined in forensic geology, forensic geoscience and geoforensics, as applied specifically to soil, as opposed to bedrock geology, for instance. Environmental forensics: the use of any of the above methods, as well as chemistry, biology, physics and the environmental sciences in the assessment of environmental impact.
Acknowledgements This article was inspired by discussions at two conferences. First with Peter Bull, Ruth Morgan and Duncan Pirrie at the 2009 conference on Crime Science, where I presented some of these ideas with Laurance Donnelly, who is likewise thanked. Second at the First Ibero-American Conference on Forensic Geology, where discussions with Carlos Martin Molina, Bill Schneck, Raymond Murray and again Laurance Donnelly were inspirational. A lot of the material mentioned above was derived from my works with Jennifer McKinley, who is thanked. References [1] Scientific American, Science and art: curious use of the microscope, Scientific American 11 (30) (1856) 240.
12
A. Ruffell / Forensic Science International 202 (2010) 9–12
[2] A. Conan-Doyle, The Complete Sherlock Holmes, Doubleday & Company Inc., New York, 1930, 554 pp.. [3] H. Gross, Handbuch fur Untersuchungsrichter als Kriminalistik Criminal Investigation: A practical Textbook for Magistrates, Police Officers and Lawyers. Adam & Adam (1906) and Jackson (1962), Sweet & Maxwell, 1962. [4] G. Popp, Bomben, Erdspuren un Instrumenten-untersuchung, Zeitschrift fu¨r o¨ffentliche Chemie XXI (1910). [5] G. Popp, Botanische Spuren und Mikroorganismen im kriminalverfahren, Archiv fu¨r Kriminologie XIV (1939) 231–237. [6] E.B. Block, The Wizard of Berkeley, Coward-McCann, New York, 1958, 254 pp.. [7] F.E. Camps, Soil—some medico-legal aspects, in: M.W. Neil, F.L. Warren (Eds.), Soil. British Academy of Forensic Sciences Teaching Symposium No. 1, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd., London, 1962, pp. 47–51. [8] M. Brooks, K. Newton, Forensic pedology, Police Journal (London) 42 (1969) 107– 112. [9] R. Murray, Evidence from the Earth, Mountain Press Publishing Co., Missoula, Montana, 2004, 226 pp..
[10] K. Pye, D. Croft (Eds.), Forensic Geoscience: Principles, Techniques and Applications, vol. 232, Geological Society of London, 2004 318 pp. (Special Publication). [11] R. Murray, J.C.F. Tedrow, Forensic Geology: Earth Sciences and Criminal Investigation, Rutgers University Press, New York, 1975, 240 pp. (republished 1986). [12] K. Pye, Geological and Soil Evidence: Forensic Applications, CRC Press, 2007 335 pp.. [13] A. Ruffell, J. McKinley, Geoforensics, Wiley-Blackwell, 2008 332 pp.. [14] K. Ritz, L. Dawson, D. Miller, Criminal and Environmental Soil Forensics, Springer, Amsterdam, 1910, 520 pp.. [15] A. Ruffell, L.J. Donnelly, 2009. Geology and the search for human remains (conference presentation, abstract at: http://www.crimescience.org/). [16] J. Thorwald, Crime and Science: The New Frontier in Criminology, Harcourt, Brace & Co., San Diego, 1967. [17] A. Ruffell, J. McKinley, Forensic Geology & Geoscience, Earth Science Reviews 69 (2005) 235–247. [18] http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/journal.asp?issn=1527-5922&linktype=5. [19] R. Murray, The geologist as private eye, Natural History (February) (1975) 22–24.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Forensic Science International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forsciint
Review
Forensic pedology, forensic geology, forensic geoscience, geoforensics and soil forensics Alastair Ruffell * School of Geography, Archaeology & Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast, Elmwood Avenue, Belfast BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 15 February 2010 Received in revised form 30 March 2010 Accepted 31 March 2010 Available online 28 April 2010
We now have a confusing set of five commonly used terms for the application of Earth evidence in forensic science. This confusion is resulting in Earth scientists who use these methods mentioning different terms, sometimes for the same type of study. Likewise, forensic scientists, police/law enforcement officers and those employed by courts of law are becoming confused as to what each term means. A nomenclatural framework (based on the first use of each term) is proposed to encourage consistency in the use of terminology. Generally, the number of Earth science applications has grown through time, from soil and sediment analysis to remote sensing and GIS. The issue of where forensic biology and microbiology sits with these uses of Earth evidence is considered. ß 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Forensic pedology Forensic geology Forensic geoscience Geoforensics Soil forensics Environmental forensics
Contents 1.
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. Early work (pre-2003) . . . . . . . . . 1.2. Recent developments (post-2003) Forensic pedology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forensic geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forensic geoscience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geoforensics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil forensics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental forensics . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion and summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Introduction For forensic scientists and geologists/geoscientists alike, there are now a number of confusing terms for the application of these disciplines to forensic science (cf. criminalistics in some countries). Historically these include Forensic Pedology (soil science); Forensic Geology; Forensic Geoscience; Geoforensics, Soil Forensics and Environmental Forensics. Rather than attempt a standardisation or introduce a new, less-confusing overall term, this article uses an
* Tel.: +44 28 90973407; fax: +44 2890321280. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0379-0738/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.03.044
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
.. 9 .. 9 . 10 . 10 . 10 . 10 . 11 . 11 . 11 . 11 . 11 . 11
analysis of what the originator(s) of each term included in their overt or implicit definition to define what is included, and thus inform what term is most appropriate. This work is not intended to be a review of the use of soils, geology and Earth science in forensics; hence publications that do not ascribe a name to the study undertaken are not dealt with in detail. It is clarification of what each name or term means that this work seeks to achieve. 1.1. Early work (pre-2003) Early work on, and mentions of, the use of Earth materials in forensic science concern sediment and soil. It is thus rather perverse that a mention of sediment forensics has never been
10
A. Ruffell / Forensic Science International 202 (2010) 9–12
made and soil forensics has only recently been used. The Scientific American (1856 [1]) records perhaps the earliest use of sediment analysis in forensics, whereby Christian Ehrenberg, the famous Berlin professor was asked to analyse some sand. This had been recovered from barrels that were supposed to contain silver coins, yet somewhere along the railway between their origin and destination a classic case of substitution had occurred: the coins were replaced by sand. Ehrenberg had sand collected from each stop the train had made and indicated the station where the swop had been made. Interviews by the police established a possible suspect, who confessed. The subsequent stories of Arthur Conan Doyle (1887–1907 [2]), and criminal cases of Hans Gross (1962 [3]), Georg Popp (1910 [4], 1939 [5]), Oscar Heinrich (active in the 1920s and 1930s, see [6]) and Edmond Locard, established the study of soil, sediment, landforms as useful in forensic science and criminal investigations. None of the above authors created a term for their work, as they were investigators first and foremost, using all the evidence available, as opposed to Earth scientists, who have created the problem of nomenclature this article seeks to address. Forensic work on soil and sediment continued through the interwar years and between 1945 and 1960s: the FBI (starting in the 1930s), Camps (1962 [7]) used soil and sediment in cases of comparison/exclusion, intelligence gathering and substitution. None of these authors/workers used a term for their work; only Brooks and Newton (1969 [8]) used a phrase and called their work ‘forensic pedology’ (see below). Through the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s work was carried out on soil for exclusionary/comparative forensic work at the FBI laboratories, the UK’s defence laboratory (Aldermaston), in police laboratories in Germany, France and the United Kingdom, amongst others. Consequently, a review of the literature from 1965 to 2000 in Murray’s [9] bibliography shows 24 articles on the use of soil and/or sediment in criminal investigations. Critically for this review however, none of these authors proffered a name for what they were doing: most were mentioned by the name of the technique (colour, density gradient column) as applied to soil or used the word soil as the material to be analysed. As we will see (below) it was in 1968 (forensic pedology), 1975 (forensic geology), 2002/2004 (forensic geoscience), 2008 (geoforensics and soil forensics) that a series of names appeared for such work, that has led to the current confusion this article aims to clarify. 1.2. Recent developments (post-2003) Since 2003 there have been specialist forensic geology/ geoscience/soil meetings throughout the world, including three sessions of the Geological Society of America (Philadelphia, 2006; Denver, 2007; Houston, 2008) and a public forum at the annual meetings of the Geological Society of America (Denver, 2007), four meetings of the Geological Society (London, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008) and two entitled ‘International Soil Forensics’ (Australia, 2006; Scotland, 2007). Further meetings of all these groups are planned, suggesting that the use of different geoscience methods, Earth materials and soil analysis are important to forensic science. This contention is supported by the number of books published in this area [9–14] as well as articles in the forensic science literature (see reference list). The volume of meetings and publications appears to be good news for both non-forensic Earth science specialists wishing to apply their knowledge to a new arena, as well as forensic scientists looking for evidence or conducting searches. However, many of the above meetings and publications have used different titles for their works, creating confusion amongst both specialists and would-be users (investigators). The current titles include (amongst others): forensic pedology; forensic geology; forensic geoscience; geoforensics; soil forensics; environmental forensics. At the International Crime Science Confer-
ence (British Library, July, 2009) one of the authors of this work copresented a paper on forensic geology [15] in which they outlined the above problem of too many names and considered two solutions. First would be to abandon all previous names and provide one, suitable, all-encompassing, neutral term that carries no previous meaning (e.g. Earth forensics). The second solution is to ensure that the origin and meaning of the various terms is explained clearly in a mainstream scientific journal and that the names are used appropriately. As each of the names does have a distinct application and pedigree, this latter solution is preferred. This work sets out to define and explain each of the commonly encountered names, such that both specialists and non-specialists alike can speak a common language and avoid misunderstanding. 2. Forensic pedology Although the famous forensic practitioners like Ehrenberg, Gross, Popp, Locard and Heinrich (see [10,12,13]) all use the word soil (the scientific study of soil being pedology) and either mention possible applications or detail actual cases, none of them applied a direct name for, what was back in the late 1800s to mid-1900s, a specialized study. Even in 1967, when the above workers had achieved numerous successes with the forensic/legal study of soil and sediment, the classic textbook of it’s day [16] did include much on soil analysis and geology, but again no name was applied. With the publication of Brooks and Newton’s (1969 [8]) ‘forensic pedology’ article, so a named sub-discipline in the forensic sciences was established. Brooks and Newton’s article effectively preempted later authors (see below) in summarising how variable the mineralogy of sediment and soils is, and how this may lead to a soil or sediment having a unique, or almost unique identity. This makeup could then be used to compare, or better exclude, soil or sediment from questioned (e.g. a suspect or deceased victim) to a location of a scene of crime. 3. Forensic geology When the first use of forensic geology [11] was made in a widely accessible publication, the authors were referring largely to the methods of geological analysis of soil and sediment analysis, rather than the historic precedence in the type of material (soil) being analysed. Thus in later definitions of forensic geology, Murray [9] is at liberty to mention the methods of geophysics, as indeed this is what they are—methods of analysing Earth materials for assisting criminal investigations. However, the core methods referred to by Murray and Tedrow (1975 [11]) and Murray (2004 [9]) are those of soil and sediment description and analysis by petrography and mineralogy. Forensic geology should thus be used when description by hand specimen, light microscope and petrographic microscope is being made of soil, sediment and contained geological materials (e.g. fossils). In addition, grain size, sorting, grain shape and grain surface are included in the descriptive aspects of forensic geology. Forensic geology also includes analysis of mineralogy (thin section petrography, X-ray diffraction), particle size (by sieving and weighing) and chemistry (including XRF, ICP, FTIR, microprobe, amongst others). Pye [12] sticks very much to this clear and precise definition, with further case studies and more detail on analytical methods such as geochemistry and SEM. 4. Forensic geoscience The first published use of this term was in websites containing information for, and an edited book resulting from, a conference organized at the Geological Society of London in 2002 (papers from this meeting published in Pye and Croft’s edited book [10]. The
A. Ruffell / Forensic Science International 202 (2010) 9–12
organizers had correctly gauged the interest such a meeting would generate, as the meeting ran to a programme over two days, and included far more than routine applications (e.g. the use of mud on someone’s shoe being used is exclusionary or associative evidence). Although the various papers within [10] do indeed have such soil and sediment analysis at their core. Geophysics, bedrock geology, microfossils and microorganisms, statistics and the geological analysis of unusual materials (e.g. spacecraft surfaces) were included, hence the use of ‘geoscience’ in the title. Simultaneously to the editing of [10], Elsevier Europe commissioned the writing of an all-encompassing article on all aspects of the application of geological and geoscience methods to forensic science [17]. These authors included remote sensing, GIS (geographic information systems), as well as the varied methods and applications contained in [10] in their article. To summarise, the most-widely accessible publications that can assist us in providing guidance on the most appropriate use of this term are [10,17]. Neither of these works contradict each other, and demonstrate that forensic geoscience has its pedigree in forensic geology but also includes geophysics, bedrock geology, hydrodynamics, GIS, geostatistics as well as some specialist analytical techniques including bone taphonomy, isotope analysis and the SEM-microprobe method of QemScan. 5. Geoforensics As a term, this was first used to name a commercial consultancy named geoforensics, and used in a publication by [13] to encompass all that had gone before (pedology, geology, geoscience) but also include geomorphology, geography, geostatistics, remote sensing, human geography/sociology. Just as Pye and Croft [10] used ‘forensic geoscience’ and included more disciplines (detailed chapters on geophysics, unusual applications [e.g. spacecraft surfaces], statistics) than in [9], so Ruffell and McKinley [13] expanded forensic geoscience even further, with chapters on remote sensing, geomorphology and GIS, some applied to human geography and sociology. Thus, through the evolution of these three books [9,10,13], we may observe an increasing number of the sub-disciplines of the Earth (and related) sciences being included. This pattern could continue, as [13] allude to the possible future inclusion of atmospheric particles as a tool in the forensic arena. 6. Soil forensics This was first used to provide a name for a meeting (2006) in Australia of that name, and has assumed a published status with [14]. Thus we see the circle completed, with the first named use [8] of soil in forensics some 40 years ago and the value of soil still at the heart of using Earth materials in criminal and related (e.g. environmental, humanitarian) investigations. As mentioned in Section 1, this is probably the most-widely known application of Earth materials in forensic science, yet, apart from Brooks and Newton’s [8] use of forensic pedology, is the most recent to have a clear, tangible definition [14]. This is excellent, as it includes all the methods of geological, geoscientific and geoforensic analysis, but applied to soil. Thus water, sediment and topography are not directly included. Pye [12] also used soil evidence in his title, as many of the sophisticated methods of analysis he describes for sediments are applied very well to the inorganic as well (less so) to the organic portions of soil. 7. Environmental forensics The most eloquent definition of this name may be found in the journal of the same name [18] and applies to all scientific studies of the environmental impact of human activities and natural
11
disasters. This most usually involves the impact of pollutants on the environment and involves the Earth sciences where remote sensing is used to monitor vegetation, geophysics to define areas of pollution, geochemistry to detect anomalous chemicals, amongst many others. Debates concerning climate and sea-level change, as well as the damage caused, will undoubtedly result in legal action in the future, when this term will become even more widely used. 8. Discussion and summary Specific applications of science or Earth science to forensics are easier to define than the more general terms (above). If only one method or material is being discussed, then its use can be defined very simply, examples being forensic geophysics, remote sensing, petrography or micropalaeontology. Far harder to define is the use of biological (non fossilised) materials in forensics, this being an essential part of the Earth systems discussed above, and included in all of the terms discussed. However, the study of microbiological (spores, pollen, algae) and macrobiological (skeletal remains) materials is a far larger part of forensics than can be included in any of the ‘geo’ or soil words, and thus will remain a complimentary name such as ‘microbioforensics’. To summarise, this work provides the following definitions for specialists and nonspecialists alike to consider using, such that confusion may be avoided. Forensic pedology: the study of soil, both in situ as a natural material possibly disrupted by unusual events, or as a transferred material on suspects, victims and associated items (tyres, vehicles). Forensic geology: the use of geological methods and materials in the analysis of samples and places that maybe connected with criminal behaviour [9,10,19] or disasters. Geology in this sense encompasses geological methods of analysis (geophysics, petrography, geochemistry, microscopy, micropalaeontology). Forensic geoscience: encompasses forensic geology and forensic pedology, as well as unusual applications such as statistics and bedrock geology. Geoforensics: encompasses forensic pedology, Geology, forensic geoscience and includes geomorphology, GIS, remote sensing, human geography (including sociology) and geostatistics. Soil forensics: includes all the methods available to study the use of soil in forensics, meaning not only the study of soil (Pedology) but also the methods outlined in forensic geology, forensic geoscience and geoforensics, as applied specifically to soil, as opposed to bedrock geology, for instance. Environmental forensics: the use of any of the above methods, as well as chemistry, biology, physics and the environmental sciences in the assessment of environmental impact.
Acknowledgements This article was inspired by discussions at two conferences. First with Peter Bull, Ruth Morgan and Duncan Pirrie at the 2009 conference on Crime Science, where I presented some of these ideas with Laurance Donnelly, who is likewise thanked. Second at the First Ibero-American Conference on Forensic Geology, where discussions with Carlos Martin Molina, Bill Schneck, Raymond Murray and again Laurance Donnelly were inspirational. A lot of the material mentioned above was derived from my works with Jennifer McKinley, who is thanked. References [1] Scientific American, Science and art: curious use of the microscope, Scientific American 11 (30) (1856) 240.
12
A. Ruffell / Forensic Science International 202 (2010) 9–12
[2] A. Conan-Doyle, The Complete Sherlock Holmes, Doubleday & Company Inc., New York, 1930, 554 pp.. [3] H. Gross, Handbuch fur Untersuchungsrichter als Kriminalistik Criminal Investigation: A practical Textbook for Magistrates, Police Officers and Lawyers. Adam & Adam (1906) and Jackson (1962), Sweet & Maxwell, 1962. [4] G. Popp, Bomben, Erdspuren un Instrumenten-untersuchung, Zeitschrift fu¨r o¨ffentliche Chemie XXI (1910). [5] G. Popp, Botanische Spuren und Mikroorganismen im kriminalverfahren, Archiv fu¨r Kriminologie XIV (1939) 231–237. [6] E.B. Block, The Wizard of Berkeley, Coward-McCann, New York, 1958, 254 pp.. [7] F.E. Camps, Soil—some medico-legal aspects, in: M.W. Neil, F.L. Warren (Eds.), Soil. British Academy of Forensic Sciences Teaching Symposium No. 1, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd., London, 1962, pp. 47–51. [8] M. Brooks, K. Newton, Forensic pedology, Police Journal (London) 42 (1969) 107– 112. [9] R. Murray, Evidence from the Earth, Mountain Press Publishing Co., Missoula, Montana, 2004, 226 pp..
[10] K. Pye, D. Croft (Eds.), Forensic Geoscience: Principles, Techniques and Applications, vol. 232, Geological Society of London, 2004 318 pp. (Special Publication). [11] R. Murray, J.C.F. Tedrow, Forensic Geology: Earth Sciences and Criminal Investigation, Rutgers University Press, New York, 1975, 240 pp. (republished 1986). [12] K. Pye, Geological and Soil Evidence: Forensic Applications, CRC Press, 2007 335 pp.. [13] A. Ruffell, J. McKinley, Geoforensics, Wiley-Blackwell, 2008 332 pp.. [14] K. Ritz, L. Dawson, D. Miller, Criminal and Environmental Soil Forensics, Springer, Amsterdam, 1910, 520 pp.. [15] A. Ruffell, L.J. Donnelly, 2009. Geology and the search for human remains (conference presentation, abstract at: http://www.crimescience.org/). [16] J. Thorwald, Crime and Science: The New Frontier in Criminology, Harcourt, Brace & Co., San Diego, 1967. [17] A. Ruffell, J. McKinley, Forensic Geology & Geoscience, Earth Science Reviews 69 (2005) 235–247. [18] http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/journal.asp?issn=1527-5922&linktype=5. [19] R. Murray, The geologist as private eye, Natural History (February) (1975) 22–24.