- Email: [email protected]
Science in Court
Meeting Report
Science in Court Reporter: Gayle Taylor Summer conference, 7-9 July 2006, Leeds Hilton, Leeds
Presenting the evidence -things can only get better Dr Ann Priston, OBE, JP. Vice President Forensic Science Society During the presentation Dr Priston discussed the role of the expert witness, the key elements that make up an experts witness statement and the expectations of the courts. Court requires that statements must be presented in a style where pages are numbered and signed. This can then be read out as expert evidence, statements are not usually contested. A statement should be clear, concise, accurate, and understandable. Guidelines from the forensic science society are: Introduction - academic and professional qualifications in full Case circumstances and information received Item receipt Purpose Technical notes - keep simple and brief - use an appendix where appropriate Examinationlresults - Use common names along with chemical name. Keep it simple as can be tedious when read out. Name your assistants Conclusion There will be times when your statement will not be accepted and you will be required to present your evidence in court. In these cases do not embellish or present anything new, and keep to what is written in your statement. In magistrates and crown courts the presentation is the same. Opinion is generally excluded except when from an expert. They are permitted to give opinion provided it is evidence of fact and is based on experience. There are no set criteria for expert witnesses but they are usually qualified or experienced. Qualifications may be challenged in court; however there are no set standards to satisfy at present. The expert must also be presentable to the court and jury. An expert is expected to be unbiased, consider other opinons, stay within their expertise, remain professional, objective and impartial. Visual aids like charts and diagrams can be used, but permission must be given and be sensitive to the content. Be wary as they can be rejected. A case study: Operation Waring - 5 armed men, wearing masks entered and raided a warehouse. There were six staff on site, who were handcuffed and some beaten with batons. One managed to call the police, who then arrived on the scene. They apprehended some of the gang and collected vast amounts of evidence all of which would then have to be explained and
science&justice Volume 46 ~ o . (2006) 4 241 - 251
presented in court. There were numerous fibre transfers between suspects and victims. This evidence needed to be presented in an informative and interesting way. To present the case acetates were used as overlays to explain the fibre transfers, given to each jury pair. The prosecution counsel however decided that a power point presentation would be better. A company was selected the day before court hearing, but the operator was mugged so did not attend, later a substitute was sent. There were no cables long enough in the court so the presentation was done by signals from Dr Priston. To make matters worse the sun streamed in from the windows so no one could see the screen. These types of stories happen to all of us but when presenting evidence is difficult make sure you know the case, never be arrogant, or angry, and answer the questions. Admit when you are wrong or do not know. Present with honesty and impartiality. A thought for the future - how do we test the competence of an expert witness? Forensic Science in the UK Dr Ian Gibson MP, Former chair of the parliamentary ofice of science and technology The aim of this talk was to highlight the relationships between forensic science and the Government. How can politicians and scientists work together to improve the service, appeal to a global market and encourage further generations to take an interest in science? The report called together experts from universities, scientists, police and other establishments to discuss issues surrounding forensic science. It started in 2004 with the plans to develop the Forensic Science Service to a private company. It also discussed universities, investment, development and competition. The report only covered England and Wales. The future of forensic science needs to be addressed, primarily the privatisation of the Forensic Science Service (FSS). The FSS became an Executive Agency of the Home Office in 1991. Before this there was no charging system in place for forensic services. In 1996 the FSS merged with the Metropolitan Police forensic science lab and gained trading fund status in 1999. These changes opened up the possibility of a market in forensics and other companies started to penetrate the market. The forensic community needs to consider the ethos of privatisation and resist it unless for a good reason. It is widely believed that the work carried out by the FSS and its role in the Criminal Justice System means that it should always be a public sector organisation. The FSS at present is a Government owned company. But full privatisation could be just a matter of years away. There is time to fight against it and help influence that decision. The need to
Page 241
Meeting Report Science in Court
look at global markets is apparent when making any decisions. Putting a new product or service on the market is very hard in this country but abroad is very driven that way and could influence our market place. The media needs to be considered as they influence the police and are themselves influenced by high profile cases. Tomorrow's headlines can influence policy and which are not then fit for purpose. It was recommended that an independent regulator be set up to cover the forensic industry. The DNA database should also have a regulator that will prevent the misuse of that information by public industry. Education was discussed, with accreditation for university courses. There are many courses with forensics in the title - due to the CSI effect - as puts bums on seats. How many of these degrees are useful? The Forensic Science Society is currently working on this, with more details to be released hopefully by November. Mr Gibson runs a think tank called Newton's Apple, developed to improve science in the future for schools and universities. Dealing with issues like how to make science more interesting, available and exciting. Science teaching at school is a concern. Teachers have to conduct the experiments; this has taken away the interest and involvement so less children progress in science. Change is needed with teachers and schools. Forensic Science is a fast moving field with money and legislative constraints. Politics and science do not mix well - both look upon each other with suspicion. The police, home office, universities, counsel need to meet and communicate. Fast track grants are needed for future development. Expert witness problems recently have highlighted that the system needs to be reviewed and regulated. One recommendation is that experts meet before the court hearing to discuss options and agreementsldisagreements so as not to confuse the judge and jury. It has never been researched if juries understand the evidence that has been presented to them. Would the government allow such studies to take place? The need for a forum to make judges and lawyers aware of what they will be hearing. Since the report the government have been reviewing and using the information. There have been six debates in govement so far. We as scientists need to be the voice and put forward opinions to get money and important decisions made. The best method is by letters and petitions to your local MPs Human Tissue Act Alison Hall, Cambridge Genetics Knowledge Park This presentation looked at The Human Tissue Act which was created in response to a series of scandals that revealed that organs and tissues were routinely retained without the knowledge or consent of relatives. This act makes consent the fundamental principle and new legislation has been made to
Page 242
prevent a repeat of Alderhey and other cases of retained human materials. This includes human organs, tissue and the whole body. It balances human rights and expectations. It regulates the removal, storage and use of human material. It is due to come into force in September 2006. The human tissue authority was set up to oversee the regulations. It was created for inspection and licensing, storage and examination of samples. It uses penalties as punishment for breech of the act. It makes lawful the storage and use of materials from the living and dead with appropriate consent. It includes all material called relevant material, which excludes hair1 nails from the living. It excludes Post Mortems but does include anatomical examination to determine cause of death, for scientific or medical information. Examples that do not require permission from the living include clinical audits, education or training relating to human health, performance assessment, and public health monitoring. Who can give consent? Any competent child, parent, relative following strict lists for both dead and living. The act excludes the impodexport of material such as cell lines developed out of the body. Deemed consent is needed where the individual has a mental incapacity, then scientific and medical information relevant to the purpose of transplantation by a person acting in the person's best interest. This includes clinical trails, but excludes anything done under the coroner's authority. This has a different consent hierarchy. The options for storage and consent are lawful disposal, return to family member, and retention of the material for medical research or other purposes. Consent is not needed for the removal but is needed for the retention of samples. The act excludes prevention and detection of crime. The DNA section of the act includes Scotland. A person commits an offence if he has any bodily material intending that: any DNA material be analysed without qualifying consent and that the results of the analysis are used otherwise than for an excepted purpose. Body material is anything that came from a person but excludes extracted DNA. Implications are that a competent person may veto the use of material irrespective of reasons and timing of refusal, but you may deem consent for untraceable or non-responding relatives provides that reasonable efforts to obtain consent is given. Excepted purposes - coroner, prosecutor fiscal, and the prevention of crime. Licensing is required from 1 September 2006. It is required for post mortems, removing material for scheduled purposes. Licences are for individual persons and premises. They are only draft versions and not fully detailed or printed at the time of the presentation. Full details on the website www.hta.g0v.uk
science&justiceVolume 46 ~ o . (2006) 4 241 - 251
Meeting Report Science in Court
Consent problems associated the forensic issues: which hierarchy? When should it be applied? Beforelafter inquest? Local protocols and national guidance? In forensic sectors where licensing is necessary, will it be premise, person, or purpose specific? Licences are also needed but for what purpose, such as determining cause of death, evidence, and identification. The uncertainty in status of samples is a concern when retained for defence such as repeat autopsies, and when autopsy is downgraded from homicide to routine. There are at present problems between the human tissue act and coroner's authority, CJ purposes, data protection act, mental capacity act, EU directive on tissues and cells. This should be addressed in the future. The act needs consistency across geographical areas most importantly.
DNA and the Prosecutors Fallacy Sue Pope, Forensic Science Service The aim of this presentation is to describe the Prosecutors Fallacy and highlight how it can become an issue when presenting DNA evidence in court. The Prosecutors Fallacy or Transposed Conditional: - the error of assuming that the probability of the evidence given the hypothesis is the same as the probability of the hypothesis given the evidence. What is the probability that an elephant has 4 legs on a scale of 0 - 1?? Probability +
Pr(4 legs)
Conditioning info
+ Elephant
= 0.99
There is an animal outside, what is the probability this animal is an elephant given that it has 4 legs??
the probability of the prosecution against the probability of the defence. The forensic scientist provides the findings; a DNA profile from crime stain obtained and matches Mr.Grey. This is going to affect the final opinion of the jury (POSTERIOR ODDS).
Pr = Probability H = Prosecution Hypothesis: DNA came from Mr.Grey A = Defence Hypothesis: DNA came from unknown person E = Evidence: DNA result. The scientist should give the probability of the evidence GIVEN the proposition, for example; the probability of obtaining this DNA result if the stain came from someone other than Mr.Grey is 1 in a billion. They should not give the probability of the proposition GIVEN the evidence, for example; the probability that this DNA came from someone other than Mr.Grey is 1 in a billion. This is a transposed statement. THE PROSECUTORS FALLACY IN COURT: ADAMS CASE. In 1989, an allegation that a Samaritan worker raped a distressed woman. The evidence was semen on a cushion. The old SLP system was used, and the match probability was 1 in 27 million.
Q: is it possible that the semen could have come from a different person? A: it is possible, but it is also unlikely as to really not be credible.. .. I can work out the chances as being less than 1 in 27 million. Q: so it really is a high degree of probability that the semen stain came from Mr.Adams? A: ...A figure of 1 in 27 million does tend to imply that it is extremely likely there is only really 1 man in the whole of the UK that has this profile.
1 Pr(E1ephant)
= Certainly not 0.99!
Has 4 legs
So the fallacy is to equate these two different statements, even though the 'elephant' and the '4 legs' have been switched between the conditioning information and the probability. Transposed conditional:
1" "
Elephant
How does this relate to DNA evidence? BAYES THEOREM: which is used to put the role of the scientist into perspective. A jury will have already formed an opinion before the DNA evidence is given (PRIOR ODDS). They will have considered
science&.justice Volume 46 ~ o . (2006) 4 241 - 251
These statements are the same as the elephant example; Pr (matching DNA) GIVEN the semen came from someone other than Mr.Adams is ( 1 in 27 million). But in cross-examination they have said Pr (DNA came from someone other than Mr.Adams) GIVEN the matching DNA is 1 in 27 million. As with the elephant there is a probability for the second statement but it isn't the same as the probability for the first statement.
Pr(matching DNA) Semen came from someone other than
someone other than Mr Adams) Matching DNA
Page 243
Meeting Report Science in Court
The appeal court remarked 'The scientist should not be asked his opinion on the likelihood that it was the defendant who left the crime stain, nor when giving evidence should he use the terminology which may lead the jury to believe that he is expressing such an opinion.' This is stating that the role of the scientist is to provide the Pr (evidence given proposition) and not the Pr (proposition given the evidence) i.e.; Do not transpose the conditional; do not commit the prosecutor's fallacy. R2S - From Crime Scene to Court Room Andy Rolph and Evan Watson R2S = Return to Scene, is a software system commissioned by Grampian Police. It is not specifically a court presentation system.
The Presentation of Marks Evidence in Court Sarah Jacob, Forensic Science Service The aim of this presentation was to give a brief overview of footwear and tool mark comparisons, how evidence is perceived and presented in court and the types of issues that arise during cross-examination. This process is used in cases where shoes are received and need to be compared to shoe marks left at a scene. Firstly the sole of the recovered shoe is powdered and pressed onto acetate. This is then overlaid onto the scene mark and used for a direct comparison. Considerations are the composition, pattern, size, wear and damage. Damage is random so identification is very selective and can be conclusive. It is also useful look at how common or rare a particular shoe or mark is. This is a useful exclusion tool, as well as inclusion.
Crime scenes are becoming increasingly large with lots of DNA, fingerprints and other evidence. It needs to be shown where they were found and then identified.
The method is similar for tools. A test mark is taken by making a mould. There is a mould from the scene mark taken at the time to compare with. Look at the mark for detail, damage, and rarity of the tool. It can be conclusive.
A design company who worked mainly on oil and gas rigs was enlisted; they use programmes that enabled 360" images of areas. The programme needed to be quick and easy to use, so that everyone including SOCOs and photographers could use it.
There are different levels of conclusion; it can be low, moderate, up to conclusive. All these levels are determined by the shoe type, rarity, and statistics.
Where photographers take traditional 360" images it takes time, skill and perspective. A new camera called a Svelon from Germany takes a 360" photo by itself. It takes 26 apertures in one go. The camera can take two scans which enable everything to be measured in the correct perspective - even in the future when the scene has gone. The case file can be put on a DVD, run off a laptop, or a computer network. The beauty is that it can incorporate maps, sketches, helicopter shots, photos and blueprints to enable a clear picture. It holds audio and visual information including 999 phone calls. It works in real time on a network. When new information is added, it will instantly appear on all machines that are running. It highlights the changes. It can send texts of selected information to the mobile phone of the SIO as it comes in. The programme is a collaboration tool. It pools all the evidence together in a visual and clear format. It is good for the defence work, prosecution and the police. Case examples of where the system had been used were a shooting at the Barbican in London and a pub where one man was hit over the head with a dumbbell. It has also been used to perform body mapping, as well as an ESDA case. It blended the original letter to the ESDA representation.
There is not much scope for cross examination, most common in low level conclusions. Questioning could include 'How was the mark made?' A kicked person or clothing is difficult to recover marks from. Problems may arise when footwear marks are distorted. If the surface is not flat, voids can appear in the pattern. In one case shoe marks in blood on a t-shirt were recovered. To an extent this can be recreated in the lab by making impressions on similar cloths and fabrics. A test mark was made from a recovered shoe and used on a new t-shirt. The original marked t-shirt was enhanced by chemical treatment. There was strong support for the recovered shoe making the mark. The defence focused on how much force was needed but Miss Jacob was unable to comment. In the future it might be possible to consult with the coroner/pathologist to see if the underlying tissue damage would give an idea of force. When the defence does not contest that the footwear came into contact with the clothing; the focus is often on how it got there. In one case the suspect said he tripped and fell leaving a mark on the victim's t-shirt. The pathologist can then examine the body to conclude how much force was used. In this case the force was so great that there was a shoe mark on the inside of the t-shirt where skin cells had transferred. This showed up under UV lights and the pattern was a match.
The programme has a data trail and up to 50 people can have access. The privileges can be altered to specific individuals.
Good photos are needed and it is important that the orientation of marks is recorded, as this can help when describing events in court.
The technology has been sold to the FBI, police forces in Australia, China, Bedfordshire, Grampian, Thames Valley and many more.
An important question is 'Who made the mark?' to consider the possibility of alternative suspects. All footwear marks at the
Page 244
sciencetkjustice Volume 46 N0.4 (2006) 241 - 251
Meeting Report Science in Court
scene needed recording at the time. This is important for elimination. A thorough scene examination needs to be performed. It is not possible to age marks at present, as they do degrade quickly over time. Dust settles and removes fine details - it is possible to recognise 'fresh' marks. Another question asked can be 'Who was wearing the shoes?' DNA is not a great option due to transfer and people share shoes. It is possible to look at the insoles. A pair of control shoes are recovered and the impressions are compared. It is also possible to get the suspect to walk in ink on paper for a pressure print. This will never give a conclusive link but can provide very strong support ('Cinderella' test). This all needs collaboration with the police. The pathologist and scientist need to be able to discuss findings as one may be able to help the other. Conclusions reached in tool marks evidence is cut and dry. There is a need for better collaboration with police and scene examiners. The best evidence needs to be collected, elimination samples taken or collected, and if possible a scientist called to the scene.
Gunshot Residue and Firearms BPAS Explained and Experienced Philip Boyce, Forensic Alliance The Forensic Alliance (FA) team were based at the Royal Armouries in Leeds in 2003. They conduct weapons classification, ammunition, and recovery of DNA, bullet and cartridge comparison, tool marks and much more. The big advantage of being at the armouries is the access to 25,000 weapons. What is GSR? Inorganic components, small metallic particles, and explosives. The primer is hit which bums the propellant and that fires the bullet. This then produces a cloud which can go on a person and surrounding area. It is very light and settles like dust. If it is windy it is possible to miss the person. Recovery is through sticky lifts, swabbing, hovering. FA now have there own kit, stubbing which is an adhesive carbon pad mounted on a block. Gunshot residue recovery and analysis is done at Tamworth in the firearms facility to eliminate contamination where no guns are allowed and there is a strict visitor policy. A scanning electron microscope is used for analysis. It is automated and can be unattended; it allows remote access for Leeds examiners to view data and the runs. Factors effecting GSR on a person or weapon are the number of shots, type of weapon, area sample, weather, washing, time delay, and persistence. GSR will last 6-7 hours on face and hair but only 1-2 hours on hands.
packaging at the scene, double bagging, and most importantly keeping the weapons away from the evidence. Firearms BPA (blood pattern analysis) is also camed out, considerations are the type and calibre of weapon, the number of shots, distance to target, location of wounds, clothing type, and body hair Courts do no tend to argue with the evidence presented. To show the results from analysis lots of photographs and examples are used so the jury have a clear view of what happened and what was found.
Forensic Pathology and the Court Professor Chris Milroy, Home Ofice Pathologist Pathology is a branch of medicine, defined as the study of disease. Forensic pathology concentrates on sudden and suspicious deaths. The aim of this talk was to describe the role of the pathologist and the issues that can arise when presenting evidence in court. The United Kingdom has around 800 homicides a year. Stabbing is the principle cause of death, this has been consistent over the years. Blunt weapons are commonly used and shooting are less than 100 a year. Poisons are rarely used. The pathologists are instructed by HM Coroner, Procurator Fiscal in Scotland, and are requested by the police. An Autopsy is the collection of evidence, material, recording detail and damage. Forensic Pathology can therefore be very subjective by nature leaving us to rely on the skill and judgment of the pathologist, this may also introduce bias. Typical forensic issues to be considered are if case is self inflicted, accidental, time since death, artefact or true injury, contribution of natural disease (manslaughter can be charged when event contributed to death), what caused the injury, when it was inflicted, the activity of victim, and survival~ofvictim. This can be aided with interpretation from forensic scientists. Ancillary tests used to aid judgements are toxicology, histology, neuropathology, and radiology Reports must be clear and understandable, they are often too short where tests conducted are not included or no conclusions are presented. In court the presentation of the evidence to the jury has to be understood, the reality is often too shocking and too prejudicial so photos can not be shown. It is possible to show x-rays, diagrams and computer images.
Contamination issues are commonly encountered as armed police may be the arresting officer. Their equipment and clothing may have GSR, as well as outside packaging of exhibits. It is very hard to clean residue off guns that have been fired.
Homicide in infants is a problem to diagnose; it is also possible to encounter an expert out of their field such as in the Sally Clark case, which might then influence the jury. Other cases have highlighted problems in interpreting findings, confusing terminology, and the use of 'consistent with'
To avoid contamination there are protection and separation policies, sampling procedures, packaging, complete item
The future must address the lack of a true evidence base; the need for more research must be rectified. Studies at universities
science&justice Volume 46 ~ o . (2006) 4 241 - 251
Page 245
Meeting Report Science in Court
need to be invested in, and the research base extended. The profession will always remain subjective and therefore the establishment of proper peer reviews and quality audit procedures will help to improve the quality of evidence and hopefully reduce the number of cases becoming controversial. Luminol - A Crime Scene Managers Perspective Dept Sgt John Cockram A case study was used to present use of luminol in a crime scene. Operation Thrumpton: The 'Camden Ripper' Anthony Hardy was the second case that it was employed for the UK, the use of luminol is under question in the USA. The Police were called to a flat, in connection to arson from burning through a letter box combined with acid in January 2002. They talked to Mr Hardy and searched the flat in relation to the arson; a body was found in the bedroom. His lodger was dead and he denied knowing anything about it. There was a bucket of water in the room, the body was posed but death was given as a heart attack. Hardy was sectioned under the Mental Health Act but not charged with murder. In December 2002 a tramp found legs, an arm and a torso in a wheelie bin behind a pub. All bins in a !h mile area of the estate were then searched for more parts. The local landfill site was searched systematically. Hardy was quickly made a suspect as there was a bad smell reported from his flat. A torso with a hack saw and some knives were found in the same room where the 1st victim had been found, Hardy had disappeared. The forensic strategy was to identify the victims and find the cause of death, then seek evidence to link Hardy, and to identify any possible further victims. One victim was identified as Liz Valad using her breast implants and the second as Bridget McLennan using DNA. An associate of Hardy sold photos to the Sun newspaper who then contacted the police. The photos show posed pictures of both bodies but most importantly they connected the masks seen on the victims, baseball cap, vibrators, and socks to Hardy. They were time specific. Also recovered was CCTV footage of the bin bags being dumped. Hardy was diabetic so had to collect medication at a hospital, all were then put on alert. He was stalled at a hospital until police arrived, found on him was a camera that fit the negatives recovered. DNA was recovered on the weapons, bin bags, fingerprints, and they matched with mechanical fit. No female clothing was found in the flat, other than 'trophy' shoes and a bra of the 1st victim. The Old Bailey found Hardy guilty to three murders and he was sentenced to life in prison. Enquiries are continuing due to more DNA being found at the scene. Methods used in the search for blood, firstly the eye was used with white light, then specialist light and finally luminol.
Page 246
Luminol has health and safety concerns. Its use mostly comes down to interpretation. Luminol is affected by paint, rust, glue, and many other substances. It does not react with whole blood. If the pictures that were produced of the luminol testing were used in court would it be prejudicial as the jury may not understand. It must be interpreted correctly; even the SIO on the case was easily led. The disadvantages are that it can not distinguish between human and animal blood, it is water based, and can create false results and it is only a presumptive test. Advantages are that it is very sensitive, may lead to other evidence and may help with the sequence of events. Expert witnesses must not make misleading statements that may influence or prejudice the jury. Luminol has its place but should be used after everything else has been exhausted, as a last resort. "..................Are Literate Jurors a Problem?" Dr Chris Davies, Forensic Science Service Ltd In most forensic fields it can mainly be said that the expert knows more about the evidence type than the average person, questioned document examiners however are commonly in a position where the jury possess some knowledge of the material being presented. The lecture aims to look at how this evidence is presented and how the knowledge of the jury has to be taken into consideration. Questioned documents and handwriting evidence is well established, and goes way back to the 1800's, an expert can give opinion evidence and evidence of the facts, but it is based on analysis rather than recognition. An example of known writing is used for comparison. It can be in the form of a request sample from the police, from the 'course of business', a diary or such like and identified by a friend or work colleague. The identification can be by a non expert but someone that knows that writing. Most criminal cases are heard in a magistrates court - around 99%. Handwriting is normally heard in the crown court. The jury have knowledge as they can all read and write, therefore is an expert necessary as they know this field? Expert evidence should not be allowed but the jury do not have a strong enough knowledge to reach a safe conclusion. The evidence can be presented two ways which is the choice of the barrister. Firstly present your conclusion, and then give an opportunity to ask how it was achieved. The jury then either accept or reject this information based on the presentation and first impression of the expert. Or secondly the jury can be taken through the details of the examination and make there own conclusions before the expert gives his. The presentation works best if a handwriting chart is prepared. Which is when examples of words from the document are compared to the words of known source. This enables the jury to
science&justice volume 46 ~ 0 . (2006) 4 241 - 251
Meeting Report Science in Court
see them side by side, and it is easy to see and explain. This chart is given to each jury pair. An expert can show and explain the construction, style, slope, and details of each letter. They can also point out differences and explain what may have occurred. Also it is important not to assume that all juries are literate. How do you present to a jury that has a mix of knowledge? Some may start to ignore you. There is no simple answer. There is also the CSI effect, juries use it for a base for fact and can reach acquittals for silly mis-beliefs.
Fingerprint Evidence Kris De-Berg, Metropolitan Police, New Scotland Yard Emotion provoking leaders, change peoples behaviour. A forensic expert in court must be sensitive to this. Fingerprints need to move on and change, challenge, adapt and find alternative court practices. Technology and science has created an opportunity to change and adapt their processes. At present in the UK a 16 ridge identification means a match. Experts must start to communicate more than just to confirm the match as if it is set in stone. To uphold the CJ system all must be able to communicate effectively and speak the same language, you must also be able to respond and react to each other. We have a duty to uphold the CJ system - the further from the centre people are, the less communication there is. As a result it becomes harder to uphold the system. Partnerships must be created to move forward. The use of case conferences and meetings need to be the norm. They can help establish what the defence and prosecution agree and disagree on and what will be questioned in court. How an expert looks, acts and their charisma will be noted and judged almost as much as what they are saying. It is sad in our times indeed but is reality. An expert must remember their role, who they serve and their expertise. They must not present a bias opinion. But must present evidence that is beyond the expertise of the judge and jury. As an expert witness you must be able to articulate and make lay people understand your conclusions and how you reached them. The use of diagrams and visual aids are essential, but treat the use of statistics with care and make sure that the meaning is understood. The Metropolitan police policy includes the training of experts, it encourages dialogue, each borough has forensic managers that must enforce progress, and it shows it is easier to present than to describe. The use of graphic designers to bring scenes to 'life' and enable juries to visualise scenes rather than bus them to it and walk round is a big step forward in these time. These methods can be used for any forensic discipline, graphics can show anything. It can not be used for all crimes but it can help in some. A good deal of progress has been made, but more progress must be made from these foundations.
science&justice Volume 46 N0.4 (2006) 241 - 251
Forensic Odontology Dr Freddie Martin The aim of this talk was to look at some of the ways for presenting evidence in court in relation to pattern injuries caused by bite marks. A bite mark is a very distinctive injury, leaving behind a pattern, which the odontologist can often link to the offender using a series of measurements, moulds and overlays. You normally see classic oval or round shape. Also considered in evidential support is the intercanine distance and patternslfeatures of the teeth. This type of analysis is done by taking dental models; these can be used with an overlay to compare marks. For the presentation of this evidence it is best to supply the jury with photos and acetate overlays to show marks. Dr Martin has found this exercise works better in pairs to make them concentrate and pay attention! 'Two sets of twins' -Two case studies Twin boys, one was bitten and he stated it was the mother. The mother said it was the second twin. The father took photographs and reported the incident. Although the photo was taken by an amateur it did include the entire lower and upper arch, and by measuring the logo on the boys t-shirt a scale could be calculated. The intercanine distance was measured at 3 lmm, 3035mm is an average female bite. Moulds were collected from brother, mother and father to compare to the bite mark. The twin brother could not have made the mark due to having a much smaller intercanine distance and a straighter arch. The intercanine distance of the father was 38mm. The intercanine distance of the mother was 30mm and her two front teeth were considerably longer than her lateral incisors. This would imply that had she bitten her son the two front teeth would make contact first and therefore make a deeper cut. This complied with the mark on the photograph, plus an overlay of the bite matched a mould of her teeth The moulds have to be latterly altered to work for the overlay. The public will accept a bite will leave patterns but a defence will not. You must try and get the evidence in the same scale to make it easier to see and physically fit. The mother was found to have bitten the child, but the case was dismissed. The second case involved tiny twins, where only one of the twins was abused. The mother and separated boyfriend both had access to the children. The mother had a round bite and palatable teeth. She was found to have bitten the child as the boyfriend had dentures and a very distinct bite. The verdict was accidental so no case to answer. In court it is all about the presentation of your evidence and luck!
-
"Where did it all go wrong, Mr Best" Experts and the Courtroom Ian Stebbings, Barrister, Grays Inn, London Mr. Stebbings discussed the tactics Barristers may employ to undermine an expert and how these tactics can be overcome. Most important is to think from the jury's prospective!
Page 247
Meeting Report Science in Court
There are tactics used to get the best and worse from witnes,s. Counsels focus: To obtain evidence to support case Obtain evidence to undermine the other parties case (must disclose the defence to the prosecution) Obtain additional evidence Badger the officer in the case to get the report for the full forensic evidence and events. To clarify the evidence To test the evidence (unreliability) To impeach evidence (memory, perception) To impeach a witness (dishonest, bias, credibility) The expert's role when giving evidence: To present an UNBIASED opinion or conclusion according to the facts supplied To assist the tribunal/court in matters within the expert's field of knowledge or expertise - Do not stray in to or be tempted to comment on something out of your field, politely decline. To present evidence in an uncomplicated manner so that the tribunal of fact can understand it and reach a reasoned judgement based upon it Prepare report then present it clearly so the jury understand it - If you must use technical jargon then explain it in laymen's terms. The courtroom appearance: Think about what you need in the witness box Think where your evidence begins - when you walk through the door - your appearance, first impressions do count Think about the first words that are going to be said the oath or affirmation Think about evidence you are going to give -when you first put pen to paper, and know it Honesty is the only answer. Admit it when you do not know - do not bluff! Avoid clichks and jargon Evidence in chief - some common problems: Listening to the question - only answer what you are asked Not understanding the question - seek clarification, rephrase The 'Pedestal Syndrome' - experts are put on a pedestal by the jury, court, etc. Must maintain balance but do not be afraid to ask for clarification Findings not being backed up by empirical evidence experts must back up what they say, can not be expected to be taken at their word. Use quotes and sources, if needed take the source with you. Assumptions leading to errors - if it can not be backed up by tests 'A picture paints a thousand words' - use diagrams The helpfullhinder approach to evidence. Helpful to prosecution then hinder the defence or vice versa Cross examination - common problems: Failure to answer the question or evasive
Page 248
Failure to admit to mistakes - admit to the error as it is far more honest in the eyes of the jury than to try and cover it up Arrogant approach to the opposition Answer from your head and not from your notes - do not use them like a crib sheet, look like an expert Take your time - do not let anyone rush you If in doubt - stop Be yourself Some keys to assist in cross examination: Cross examination need not be cross Know the opposition Know your case and your role Know the law and the procedures If you need time then ask for it Do not fill gaps - the power of the pause. A pause can be powerful and oppressive -Do not fall for it and add more Ride the bumps - good with the bad and do not get unnerved Do not get dragged away - stick to your area Do not be evasive Stick to what you know Remember who is important - the judge and jury Do not fight the advocate The honest guide - no bluffing Barrister tactics: No leading questions unless the matter not in dispute Cross examination will have leading questions Telling not asking. The spotlight shifts Facts = control Bites sized questions - leading Putting case to witness Building moment to obvious conclusion by series of questions Bringing Their Bones into the Courtroom: Allowing the Dead to Speak for Themselves Julie Saul, Lucas County Coroner 5 Ofice (Toledo, Ohio, USA), Wayne County Medical Examiner's Ofice (Detroit,Michigan, USA) This presentation is to illustrate the use of osteological evidence and portray how the anthropologist acts as an advocate for the victim, allowing them to speak for themselves. An Anthropologist deals with the recovery and analysis of skeletal trauma. When all of the flesh has disappeared from the body and just the bones are left the forensic anthropologist can step in to assist in the quest for the truth. By studying variations in the bones, finding indicators of perimortem trauma, the specialist can build up a picture of how these abnormalities came to be. Bones are 3D so photos and diagrams do not give the full story and are not particular helpful. Somc courts allow the bones to be taken into court to be shown as an exhibit. This has been so powerful that some defendants have decided to plead guilty before standing trial. On this basis it is recommended to meet
sciencetkjustice Volume 46 N0.4 (2006)241 - 251
Meeting Report Science in Court
with the judge and counsels to discuss the results and options which would be presented in the court room. The anthropologist can deduce whether trauma is caused by Blunt force Sharp force Gunshot And can help determine: The direction of the blow The instrument used The position of the victim This is helped by the statements given to the police. In the past Dr Saul has reconstructed skulls and taken them into court. Often not all the pieces are present, normally the skull will have holes but you have enough to tell the story and identify the weapon or type. Sometimes a physical fit is possible when the weapon is found and matches the skull. This is very damming in court. It is possible to look at the fracture types and lanes that provide evidence as to how and where a person was struck. There have been times when a skull shows a story that contradicts the suspect. You then talk to the lawyers and they talk to the suspect, occasionally this has lead to the statement being changed as the evidence so is strong. Rib fractures can be presented that have healed and shown prior abuse, this can add to the evidence of a case. The jury can then see and hold the small bones. Gunshots can show the numbers, entrance and exit as well as the type. Sharp force shows the location, number, direction, the type of instrument and position of the victim. The marks can be hard to find sometimes due to the nature of the force. Bones can take on the colour of the environment from storage and surroundings. When doing a physical fit with a weapon it could have taken off the top layer and altered the colour. This can be seen in the weapon and bones. It has been seen in real life and the colour change was explained and did not jeopardise the fact that it was a perfect fit, the suspect pleaded guilty. The body of a woman was found after her husband (from whom she was separated) reported her missing 2 weeks previously. He claimed not to have seen her, but investigations showed her stomach contents to match the contents of his fridge at the time of the disappearance. Plus luminal revealed the presence of blood in his bath and on numerous linen and towels. The cause of death however was still unknown. Pathologists reported an advanced stage of decomposition around the left side of the neck. Maybe a cut to the neck allowed bacteria to enter causing this abnormal pathological progression? Examination of the neck bones revealed that the tip of the vertebrate had been sheared off, leaving a slice mark. The same skeletal trauma had been seen in the vertebrate of known stabbing cases thus deducing the cause of death.
science&justice Volume 46 ~ o . (2006) 4 241 - 251
Use of evidence allows the victim to speak for themselves. The victim is given a voice but it only helps if we can speak in a clear manner to help secure a conviction.
-
Science in Court Myths, Misunderstandings, Drama and Reality Professor Jim Fraser, Immediate Past President During this presentation Prof. Fraser discussed the role of the expert witness and the legal aspects of their role. The law is adversarial or inquisitorial, proceeds by authority, it uses common sense and is pragmatic, and it uses reasonable doubt, juries and experts. Science is observational and empirical, dynamic and testable, can be counter intuitive, inductive and inferential, and is full of uncertainty and statistical probability. In the same trial there are different standards of proof. The defence need not prove anything, but the prosecution do to secure a conviction. The legal system is meddled with contradictions It is important to stay within your area of expertise. You may be an expert in science but that does not make your opinion on human behaviour any more important than that of the jury. From a legal position, the courts do not know everything and therefore they need experts. The courts decide who has the relevant expertise. The evidence has to be admissible, reliable and relevant. The expert needs to keep the facts separate from opinions. Formal qualifications are not necessary, and at present there are no rules that only witnesses possessing some qualifications can be allowed. Myths make sense and order of the world and allow us to coordinate action and get things done. Myths are based on reasonable and programmatic assumptions but will not be true in all instances. The role of experts is to be a good communicator, and clearly understood. They are restricted by facts, and facts have to be clearly separated from opinions, and have readily available scientific criteria for the testing of evidence. Myths misunderstood Science is about certainty Cross examination is the best way to get to the 'truth' Facts and opinions are separable Shared understanding of science The reality is being asked to read someone's report as the court wants the drama of it being read by a scientist. Science has an astonishing potential to serve justice but its current contribution is far from optimal. There are many reasons for this but at least one of them is the superficiality of the debate until it goes wrong. Then we partake our untested assumptions and expectations about what we believe ought to have happened to set standards and make decisions in hindsight.
Page 249
Meeting Report Science in Court
Digital Evidence Reporting ad Presentation: a Transatlantic Perspective Angus M Marshall (Centre for Forensic Investigation, University of Teesside) and Allen Clarkson (Western Governors University, USA) This talk is a brief insight into collecting, preserving, analysing and presenting digital evidence in court. A comparison between the UK and USA, though the investigative process applies equally across jurisdictions, there are differences in the reporting of digital evidence. All digital evidence appears as a result of a human action. It can be local, remote, in the past or present, but not all of it is directly controlled by humans. Typical digital evidence sources are: Web browser cache (Local) with deliberate browsing, the computer saves a copy of websites on the desk top and keeps a copy. Web page programme features Mobile phone - sent and received calls and texts Data files - through deliberately saving, auto saving, deleted files and slack space File systems and embedded meta-data (who, time, etc) System housekeeping and logging Server, workstation, application and network access logs Email - server retention, back up polices, forwarding to an off site account Documents and data files Websites Digital Evidence in the UK: Two main specialisms exist, mobile phones and computers. These are often looked at by the police or specialist agencies and units. Issues in the UK include convergence and divergence, admissibility, privacy and witness qualifications. As a country we need more specialist practitioners. Digital Evidence in the USA: USA tends to divide forensic technicians from forensic analyses. A technician follows strict procedures for collection and preservation, chain of custody, and certification of the evidence. An analyst provides the expert explanation and context for attorneys and courts. Issues in USA are search and security as well as rules of evidence and roles of expert witnesses. In America the law is hard to understand and is very new so is only developing. In both countries the technology is developing so quickly that the law is often struggling to keep up.
evidence needs to be put in context with other evidence, as it is not conclusive as you can not prove who has been on the computer. Presentation is about credibility. Knowledge and confidence far outweigh the technical tricks. There are also form vs. function arguments. Effective Integration of Specialisms: Operation Relator a Typical Complex Case History for Court Presentation Patricia Wiltshire, University of Aberdeen This presentation reflects that use of set protocols to provided evidence and its subsequent presentation in the court room.
-
Forensic ecology has been used in 150 cases in the UK over 12 years. It includes botany and palynology, sedimentology, pedology, zoology, microbiology and many more. To get the best from ecology certain protocols are necessary found by trail and error over the years. The police most importantly must play their Part. Operation Relator - New Years Eve 2004 a body was found in Well Wood, Hertfordshire. The SIO stopped work and got a team of 'ologists' together and had a briefing the next morning. No one went to the scene, not even the pathologist to prevent contamination. The disciplines used were ecology (botany, palynology, and geology), archaeology and entomology. Priority access to the grave was given to the environmental profiler, the pathologist, followed by the entomologists and archaeologists, the ecologist and finally the police. The body was found in deep woodland and the changes had to be monitored and considered such as, the seasons, and daylight hours. Most places have a specific ecological signature. It can be very dramatic in even a small area. Pollen stays all year round and also leaves a signature. The grave was carefully dug on an island of a small river. The soils were sampled for analysis before excavation. The top millimetres of soil where the suspect would have stood had leaf matter. Samples were taken from the grave fill, edge of the grave and the local area. The body was well preserved and fingerprints allowed rapid identification. The man was a young Albanian. The question was how long had he been there.
Thoughts about cyber crime evidence are that it is limited in range and deposition may require a human act to trigger. But that is dependant on the report quality. You must consider the readers - investigators, other experts, judge and jury. Consider the use of legal and technical terms. Is one report suitable for them all?
Archaeology removed the body and identified the original grave cut. They exposed cut fern (underground steams) and other material evidence. It was initially thought the grave had been cut in the summer due to the cut steams. The basal grave fill had leaf so was at a different time. The section on top of the body was filled full of leaf. Therefore the murder was premeditated and was planned some time in advance.
Importantly you need to work with the legal team to understand the evidence and its implications - facts vs. opinions. Digital
The entomologist stated late October as the date. This led to several Albanian arrests in London. It turned out that the victim
Page 250
science&justice Volume 46 N0.4 (2006) 241 - 251
Meeting Report Science in Court
was a legal worker and the gang who killed him were not legal. They all sent money through him home, but they found out he was keeping it and murdered him. How could they connect the site to the suspects? Evidence used was botany and geology. Pollen and spores as well as minerals were found on the belongings of the suspects, footwear, jeans, and a car. Pollen sticks but minerals are like fibres and can fall easily. The main suspect had driven the car back to Albania. The experts and police went to Albania to the car to collect samples. They also collected samples from the local area to eliminate that as a possibility. Trying to explain sheets of figures to a judge and jury does not work well. 2D does not allow good presentation either. The analysis presents a stratigraphical sequence and is unique. From the analysis they know at least one suspect stepped on the soil in the grave. The graphical evidence was presented, which is excellent through QEMSCAN who did the analysis. The use of charts and graphs to try and explain the soil types and other evidence to the court are recommended. The trail took place in Albania and the judges came to England to hear expert evidence. Palynology uses dramatic and unusual or rare types of exhibits in the comparator samples. It shows the pollen samples. The data is difficult to present as is reams of figures. It is recommended to summarise and condense the data.
Try to create a picture for the court. Use explanations to construct analogies about jigsaws and kaleidoscopes, also show patterns. There is no clear way to show complex data at present.
Fire Investigation Dr Roger Berrett, Fire Investigator This talk looked at the role of the fire investigator and how fire investigation should be based on the scientific method. A primary investigation should be approached with an open mind and no bias, all activities and observations must be appropriately recorded and presented in a clear way to the courts. In court good science starts at the scene, not all exhibits require examination and analysis at the lab, but they will need to be retained. Good notes are essential, as is a good report. Guidance booklets are available for experts. Interpretation of the analysis is vital, and a forensic scientist must be able to interpret the science into good and unbiased facts. In many cases a good report will suffice and the expert witness will not be called to give evidence. Fire investigators can be fire officers with no scientific background.
because these are thought to be products of the combustion of human tissue. The car of the suspect was also contaminated. People involved were the fire investigation team from the Forensic Science Service, M-SCAN, pathologist and toxicologist, 4 fire investigators and Dr Berrett for the defence. Transposing the conditional. Ventilation controlled fires are smoky with low heat output, they smoulder and have small flames, which is true. Fires which are smoky and only had small heat output from small flames and ventilation is false. The expert witness had to attend a 'Voire Dire', a trial within a trial to decide whether the evidence was admissible. The VOC evidence was produced for court using graphs and diagrams to aid interpretation. The suspect was convicted of murder and arson without any weight being placed on the VOC evidence. The defence used crucial evidence that the defendant had received wounds to his body not by the woman defending herself, but by climbing through a gap in a nearby fence to reach his car. The fence was constructed in court and the suspect asked to reinact his movements. In fact the gap in the fence was too small for the defendant to fit through, and the jury found the man guilty. Case study 2 The occupant of a top floor flat dies due to a fire being started on the floor below her. The cause of the fire was three surf boards which were ignited in the stairwell below. The central issue here was that of timing. The police needed to know the length of time that the fire had been burning so they could calculate when the fire was started and place the suspects at the scene of the crime. This can be a problem for fire investigators as there is no easy way of estimating a time. The court therefore allowed the investigator to perform controlled experiments to measure how long it would have taken the fire to progress. The results meant that the three suspects could not have been at the flats at the estimated time of the start of the fire and were found not guilty on these grounds. So not with standing the results of the experiment they were still found not guilty. In courts use photos, film and diagrams to explain the scene and fire development. Some work is starting to be done in peer review and published for fire investigation. Science is ultimately about observations and tact.
Case study 1 The interpretation of smoke evidence. A fire followed a murder; the suspect left the building but returned an hour later to find smoke and a small fire, so then started a second fire. The suspect was later arrested and the clothing and other items were taken for analysis. The items were analysed for various organic compounds in the smoke. The higher aldehydes were an issue
science&justiceVolume 46 N0.4 (2006) 241 - 251
Page 251
Science in Court Reporter: Gayle Taylor Summer conference, 7-9 July 2006, Leeds Hilton, Leeds
Presenting the evidence -things can only get better Dr Ann Priston, OBE, JP. Vice President Forensic Science Society During the presentation Dr Priston discussed the role of the expert witness, the key elements that make up an experts witness statement and the expectations of the courts. Court requires that statements must be presented in a style where pages are numbered and signed. This can then be read out as expert evidence, statements are not usually contested. A statement should be clear, concise, accurate, and understandable. Guidelines from the forensic science society are: Introduction - academic and professional qualifications in full Case circumstances and information received Item receipt Purpose Technical notes - keep simple and brief - use an appendix where appropriate Examinationlresults - Use common names along with chemical name. Keep it simple as can be tedious when read out. Name your assistants Conclusion There will be times when your statement will not be accepted and you will be required to present your evidence in court. In these cases do not embellish or present anything new, and keep to what is written in your statement. In magistrates and crown courts the presentation is the same. Opinion is generally excluded except when from an expert. They are permitted to give opinion provided it is evidence of fact and is based on experience. There are no set criteria for expert witnesses but they are usually qualified or experienced. Qualifications may be challenged in court; however there are no set standards to satisfy at present. The expert must also be presentable to the court and jury. An expert is expected to be unbiased, consider other opinons, stay within their expertise, remain professional, objective and impartial. Visual aids like charts and diagrams can be used, but permission must be given and be sensitive to the content. Be wary as they can be rejected. A case study: Operation Waring - 5 armed men, wearing masks entered and raided a warehouse. There were six staff on site, who were handcuffed and some beaten with batons. One managed to call the police, who then arrived on the scene. They apprehended some of the gang and collected vast amounts of evidence all of which would then have to be explained and
science&justice Volume 46 ~ o . (2006) 4 241 - 251
presented in court. There were numerous fibre transfers between suspects and victims. This evidence needed to be presented in an informative and interesting way. To present the case acetates were used as overlays to explain the fibre transfers, given to each jury pair. The prosecution counsel however decided that a power point presentation would be better. A company was selected the day before court hearing, but the operator was mugged so did not attend, later a substitute was sent. There were no cables long enough in the court so the presentation was done by signals from Dr Priston. To make matters worse the sun streamed in from the windows so no one could see the screen. These types of stories happen to all of us but when presenting evidence is difficult make sure you know the case, never be arrogant, or angry, and answer the questions. Admit when you are wrong or do not know. Present with honesty and impartiality. A thought for the future - how do we test the competence of an expert witness? Forensic Science in the UK Dr Ian Gibson MP, Former chair of the parliamentary ofice of science and technology The aim of this talk was to highlight the relationships between forensic science and the Government. How can politicians and scientists work together to improve the service, appeal to a global market and encourage further generations to take an interest in science? The report called together experts from universities, scientists, police and other establishments to discuss issues surrounding forensic science. It started in 2004 with the plans to develop the Forensic Science Service to a private company. It also discussed universities, investment, development and competition. The report only covered England and Wales. The future of forensic science needs to be addressed, primarily the privatisation of the Forensic Science Service (FSS). The FSS became an Executive Agency of the Home Office in 1991. Before this there was no charging system in place for forensic services. In 1996 the FSS merged with the Metropolitan Police forensic science lab and gained trading fund status in 1999. These changes opened up the possibility of a market in forensics and other companies started to penetrate the market. The forensic community needs to consider the ethos of privatisation and resist it unless for a good reason. It is widely believed that the work carried out by the FSS and its role in the Criminal Justice System means that it should always be a public sector organisation. The FSS at present is a Government owned company. But full privatisation could be just a matter of years away. There is time to fight against it and help influence that decision. The need to
Page 241
Meeting Report Science in Court
look at global markets is apparent when making any decisions. Putting a new product or service on the market is very hard in this country but abroad is very driven that way and could influence our market place. The media needs to be considered as they influence the police and are themselves influenced by high profile cases. Tomorrow's headlines can influence policy and which are not then fit for purpose. It was recommended that an independent regulator be set up to cover the forensic industry. The DNA database should also have a regulator that will prevent the misuse of that information by public industry. Education was discussed, with accreditation for university courses. There are many courses with forensics in the title - due to the CSI effect - as puts bums on seats. How many of these degrees are useful? The Forensic Science Society is currently working on this, with more details to be released hopefully by November. Mr Gibson runs a think tank called Newton's Apple, developed to improve science in the future for schools and universities. Dealing with issues like how to make science more interesting, available and exciting. Science teaching at school is a concern. Teachers have to conduct the experiments; this has taken away the interest and involvement so less children progress in science. Change is needed with teachers and schools. Forensic Science is a fast moving field with money and legislative constraints. Politics and science do not mix well - both look upon each other with suspicion. The police, home office, universities, counsel need to meet and communicate. Fast track grants are needed for future development. Expert witness problems recently have highlighted that the system needs to be reviewed and regulated. One recommendation is that experts meet before the court hearing to discuss options and agreementsldisagreements so as not to confuse the judge and jury. It has never been researched if juries understand the evidence that has been presented to them. Would the government allow such studies to take place? The need for a forum to make judges and lawyers aware of what they will be hearing. Since the report the government have been reviewing and using the information. There have been six debates in govement so far. We as scientists need to be the voice and put forward opinions to get money and important decisions made. The best method is by letters and petitions to your local MPs Human Tissue Act Alison Hall, Cambridge Genetics Knowledge Park This presentation looked at The Human Tissue Act which was created in response to a series of scandals that revealed that organs and tissues were routinely retained without the knowledge or consent of relatives. This act makes consent the fundamental principle and new legislation has been made to
Page 242
prevent a repeat of Alderhey and other cases of retained human materials. This includes human organs, tissue and the whole body. It balances human rights and expectations. It regulates the removal, storage and use of human material. It is due to come into force in September 2006. The human tissue authority was set up to oversee the regulations. It was created for inspection and licensing, storage and examination of samples. It uses penalties as punishment for breech of the act. It makes lawful the storage and use of materials from the living and dead with appropriate consent. It includes all material called relevant material, which excludes hair1 nails from the living. It excludes Post Mortems but does include anatomical examination to determine cause of death, for scientific or medical information. Examples that do not require permission from the living include clinical audits, education or training relating to human health, performance assessment, and public health monitoring. Who can give consent? Any competent child, parent, relative following strict lists for both dead and living. The act excludes the impodexport of material such as cell lines developed out of the body. Deemed consent is needed where the individual has a mental incapacity, then scientific and medical information relevant to the purpose of transplantation by a person acting in the person's best interest. This includes clinical trails, but excludes anything done under the coroner's authority. This has a different consent hierarchy. The options for storage and consent are lawful disposal, return to family member, and retention of the material for medical research or other purposes. Consent is not needed for the removal but is needed for the retention of samples. The act excludes prevention and detection of crime. The DNA section of the act includes Scotland. A person commits an offence if he has any bodily material intending that: any DNA material be analysed without qualifying consent and that the results of the analysis are used otherwise than for an excepted purpose. Body material is anything that came from a person but excludes extracted DNA. Implications are that a competent person may veto the use of material irrespective of reasons and timing of refusal, but you may deem consent for untraceable or non-responding relatives provides that reasonable efforts to obtain consent is given. Excepted purposes - coroner, prosecutor fiscal, and the prevention of crime. Licensing is required from 1 September 2006. It is required for post mortems, removing material for scheduled purposes. Licences are for individual persons and premises. They are only draft versions and not fully detailed or printed at the time of the presentation. Full details on the website www.hta.g0v.uk
science&justiceVolume 46 ~ o . (2006) 4 241 - 251
Meeting Report Science in Court
Consent problems associated the forensic issues: which hierarchy? When should it be applied? Beforelafter inquest? Local protocols and national guidance? In forensic sectors where licensing is necessary, will it be premise, person, or purpose specific? Licences are also needed but for what purpose, such as determining cause of death, evidence, and identification. The uncertainty in status of samples is a concern when retained for defence such as repeat autopsies, and when autopsy is downgraded from homicide to routine. There are at present problems between the human tissue act and coroner's authority, CJ purposes, data protection act, mental capacity act, EU directive on tissues and cells. This should be addressed in the future. The act needs consistency across geographical areas most importantly.
DNA and the Prosecutors Fallacy Sue Pope, Forensic Science Service The aim of this presentation is to describe the Prosecutors Fallacy and highlight how it can become an issue when presenting DNA evidence in court. The Prosecutors Fallacy or Transposed Conditional: - the error of assuming that the probability of the evidence given the hypothesis is the same as the probability of the hypothesis given the evidence. What is the probability that an elephant has 4 legs on a scale of 0 - 1?? Probability +
Pr(4 legs)
Conditioning info
+ Elephant
= 0.99
There is an animal outside, what is the probability this animal is an elephant given that it has 4 legs??
the probability of the prosecution against the probability of the defence. The forensic scientist provides the findings; a DNA profile from crime stain obtained and matches Mr.Grey. This is going to affect the final opinion of the jury (POSTERIOR ODDS).
Pr = Probability H = Prosecution Hypothesis: DNA came from Mr.Grey A = Defence Hypothesis: DNA came from unknown person E = Evidence: DNA result. The scientist should give the probability of the evidence GIVEN the proposition, for example; the probability of obtaining this DNA result if the stain came from someone other than Mr.Grey is 1 in a billion. They should not give the probability of the proposition GIVEN the evidence, for example; the probability that this DNA came from someone other than Mr.Grey is 1 in a billion. This is a transposed statement. THE PROSECUTORS FALLACY IN COURT: ADAMS CASE. In 1989, an allegation that a Samaritan worker raped a distressed woman. The evidence was semen on a cushion. The old SLP system was used, and the match probability was 1 in 27 million.
Q: is it possible that the semen could have come from a different person? A: it is possible, but it is also unlikely as to really not be credible.. .. I can work out the chances as being less than 1 in 27 million. Q: so it really is a high degree of probability that the semen stain came from Mr.Adams? A: ...A figure of 1 in 27 million does tend to imply that it is extremely likely there is only really 1 man in the whole of the UK that has this profile.
1 Pr(E1ephant)
= Certainly not 0.99!
Has 4 legs
So the fallacy is to equate these two different statements, even though the 'elephant' and the '4 legs' have been switched between the conditioning information and the probability. Transposed conditional:
1" "
Elephant
How does this relate to DNA evidence? BAYES THEOREM: which is used to put the role of the scientist into perspective. A jury will have already formed an opinion before the DNA evidence is given (PRIOR ODDS). They will have considered
science&.justice Volume 46 ~ o . (2006) 4 241 - 251
These statements are the same as the elephant example; Pr (matching DNA) GIVEN the semen came from someone other than Mr.Adams is ( 1 in 27 million). But in cross-examination they have said Pr (DNA came from someone other than Mr.Adams) GIVEN the matching DNA is 1 in 27 million. As with the elephant there is a probability for the second statement but it isn't the same as the probability for the first statement.
Pr(matching DNA) Semen came from someone other than
someone other than Mr Adams) Matching DNA
Page 243
Meeting Report Science in Court
The appeal court remarked 'The scientist should not be asked his opinion on the likelihood that it was the defendant who left the crime stain, nor when giving evidence should he use the terminology which may lead the jury to believe that he is expressing such an opinion.' This is stating that the role of the scientist is to provide the Pr (evidence given proposition) and not the Pr (proposition given the evidence) i.e.; Do not transpose the conditional; do not commit the prosecutor's fallacy. R2S - From Crime Scene to Court Room Andy Rolph and Evan Watson R2S = Return to Scene, is a software system commissioned by Grampian Police. It is not specifically a court presentation system.
The Presentation of Marks Evidence in Court Sarah Jacob, Forensic Science Service The aim of this presentation was to give a brief overview of footwear and tool mark comparisons, how evidence is perceived and presented in court and the types of issues that arise during cross-examination. This process is used in cases where shoes are received and need to be compared to shoe marks left at a scene. Firstly the sole of the recovered shoe is powdered and pressed onto acetate. This is then overlaid onto the scene mark and used for a direct comparison. Considerations are the composition, pattern, size, wear and damage. Damage is random so identification is very selective and can be conclusive. It is also useful look at how common or rare a particular shoe or mark is. This is a useful exclusion tool, as well as inclusion.
Crime scenes are becoming increasingly large with lots of DNA, fingerprints and other evidence. It needs to be shown where they were found and then identified.
The method is similar for tools. A test mark is taken by making a mould. There is a mould from the scene mark taken at the time to compare with. Look at the mark for detail, damage, and rarity of the tool. It can be conclusive.
A design company who worked mainly on oil and gas rigs was enlisted; they use programmes that enabled 360" images of areas. The programme needed to be quick and easy to use, so that everyone including SOCOs and photographers could use it.
There are different levels of conclusion; it can be low, moderate, up to conclusive. All these levels are determined by the shoe type, rarity, and statistics.
Where photographers take traditional 360" images it takes time, skill and perspective. A new camera called a Svelon from Germany takes a 360" photo by itself. It takes 26 apertures in one go. The camera can take two scans which enable everything to be measured in the correct perspective - even in the future when the scene has gone. The case file can be put on a DVD, run off a laptop, or a computer network. The beauty is that it can incorporate maps, sketches, helicopter shots, photos and blueprints to enable a clear picture. It holds audio and visual information including 999 phone calls. It works in real time on a network. When new information is added, it will instantly appear on all machines that are running. It highlights the changes. It can send texts of selected information to the mobile phone of the SIO as it comes in. The programme is a collaboration tool. It pools all the evidence together in a visual and clear format. It is good for the defence work, prosecution and the police. Case examples of where the system had been used were a shooting at the Barbican in London and a pub where one man was hit over the head with a dumbbell. It has also been used to perform body mapping, as well as an ESDA case. It blended the original letter to the ESDA representation.
There is not much scope for cross examination, most common in low level conclusions. Questioning could include 'How was the mark made?' A kicked person or clothing is difficult to recover marks from. Problems may arise when footwear marks are distorted. If the surface is not flat, voids can appear in the pattern. In one case shoe marks in blood on a t-shirt were recovered. To an extent this can be recreated in the lab by making impressions on similar cloths and fabrics. A test mark was made from a recovered shoe and used on a new t-shirt. The original marked t-shirt was enhanced by chemical treatment. There was strong support for the recovered shoe making the mark. The defence focused on how much force was needed but Miss Jacob was unable to comment. In the future it might be possible to consult with the coroner/pathologist to see if the underlying tissue damage would give an idea of force. When the defence does not contest that the footwear came into contact with the clothing; the focus is often on how it got there. In one case the suspect said he tripped and fell leaving a mark on the victim's t-shirt. The pathologist can then examine the body to conclude how much force was used. In this case the force was so great that there was a shoe mark on the inside of the t-shirt where skin cells had transferred. This showed up under UV lights and the pattern was a match.
The programme has a data trail and up to 50 people can have access. The privileges can be altered to specific individuals.
Good photos are needed and it is important that the orientation of marks is recorded, as this can help when describing events in court.
The technology has been sold to the FBI, police forces in Australia, China, Bedfordshire, Grampian, Thames Valley and many more.
An important question is 'Who made the mark?' to consider the possibility of alternative suspects. All footwear marks at the
Page 244
sciencetkjustice Volume 46 N0.4 (2006) 241 - 251
Meeting Report Science in Court
scene needed recording at the time. This is important for elimination. A thorough scene examination needs to be performed. It is not possible to age marks at present, as they do degrade quickly over time. Dust settles and removes fine details - it is possible to recognise 'fresh' marks. Another question asked can be 'Who was wearing the shoes?' DNA is not a great option due to transfer and people share shoes. It is possible to look at the insoles. A pair of control shoes are recovered and the impressions are compared. It is also possible to get the suspect to walk in ink on paper for a pressure print. This will never give a conclusive link but can provide very strong support ('Cinderella' test). This all needs collaboration with the police. The pathologist and scientist need to be able to discuss findings as one may be able to help the other. Conclusions reached in tool marks evidence is cut and dry. There is a need for better collaboration with police and scene examiners. The best evidence needs to be collected, elimination samples taken or collected, and if possible a scientist called to the scene.
Gunshot Residue and Firearms BPAS Explained and Experienced Philip Boyce, Forensic Alliance The Forensic Alliance (FA) team were based at the Royal Armouries in Leeds in 2003. They conduct weapons classification, ammunition, and recovery of DNA, bullet and cartridge comparison, tool marks and much more. The big advantage of being at the armouries is the access to 25,000 weapons. What is GSR? Inorganic components, small metallic particles, and explosives. The primer is hit which bums the propellant and that fires the bullet. This then produces a cloud which can go on a person and surrounding area. It is very light and settles like dust. If it is windy it is possible to miss the person. Recovery is through sticky lifts, swabbing, hovering. FA now have there own kit, stubbing which is an adhesive carbon pad mounted on a block. Gunshot residue recovery and analysis is done at Tamworth in the firearms facility to eliminate contamination where no guns are allowed and there is a strict visitor policy. A scanning electron microscope is used for analysis. It is automated and can be unattended; it allows remote access for Leeds examiners to view data and the runs. Factors effecting GSR on a person or weapon are the number of shots, type of weapon, area sample, weather, washing, time delay, and persistence. GSR will last 6-7 hours on face and hair but only 1-2 hours on hands.
packaging at the scene, double bagging, and most importantly keeping the weapons away from the evidence. Firearms BPA (blood pattern analysis) is also camed out, considerations are the type and calibre of weapon, the number of shots, distance to target, location of wounds, clothing type, and body hair Courts do no tend to argue with the evidence presented. To show the results from analysis lots of photographs and examples are used so the jury have a clear view of what happened and what was found.
Forensic Pathology and the Court Professor Chris Milroy, Home Ofice Pathologist Pathology is a branch of medicine, defined as the study of disease. Forensic pathology concentrates on sudden and suspicious deaths. The aim of this talk was to describe the role of the pathologist and the issues that can arise when presenting evidence in court. The United Kingdom has around 800 homicides a year. Stabbing is the principle cause of death, this has been consistent over the years. Blunt weapons are commonly used and shooting are less than 100 a year. Poisons are rarely used. The pathologists are instructed by HM Coroner, Procurator Fiscal in Scotland, and are requested by the police. An Autopsy is the collection of evidence, material, recording detail and damage. Forensic Pathology can therefore be very subjective by nature leaving us to rely on the skill and judgment of the pathologist, this may also introduce bias. Typical forensic issues to be considered are if case is self inflicted, accidental, time since death, artefact or true injury, contribution of natural disease (manslaughter can be charged when event contributed to death), what caused the injury, when it was inflicted, the activity of victim, and survival~ofvictim. This can be aided with interpretation from forensic scientists. Ancillary tests used to aid judgements are toxicology, histology, neuropathology, and radiology Reports must be clear and understandable, they are often too short where tests conducted are not included or no conclusions are presented. In court the presentation of the evidence to the jury has to be understood, the reality is often too shocking and too prejudicial so photos can not be shown. It is possible to show x-rays, diagrams and computer images.
Contamination issues are commonly encountered as armed police may be the arresting officer. Their equipment and clothing may have GSR, as well as outside packaging of exhibits. It is very hard to clean residue off guns that have been fired.
Homicide in infants is a problem to diagnose; it is also possible to encounter an expert out of their field such as in the Sally Clark case, which might then influence the jury. Other cases have highlighted problems in interpreting findings, confusing terminology, and the use of 'consistent with'
To avoid contamination there are protection and separation policies, sampling procedures, packaging, complete item
The future must address the lack of a true evidence base; the need for more research must be rectified. Studies at universities
science&justice Volume 46 ~ o . (2006) 4 241 - 251
Page 245
Meeting Report Science in Court
need to be invested in, and the research base extended. The profession will always remain subjective and therefore the establishment of proper peer reviews and quality audit procedures will help to improve the quality of evidence and hopefully reduce the number of cases becoming controversial. Luminol - A Crime Scene Managers Perspective Dept Sgt John Cockram A case study was used to present use of luminol in a crime scene. Operation Thrumpton: The 'Camden Ripper' Anthony Hardy was the second case that it was employed for the UK, the use of luminol is under question in the USA. The Police were called to a flat, in connection to arson from burning through a letter box combined with acid in January 2002. They talked to Mr Hardy and searched the flat in relation to the arson; a body was found in the bedroom. His lodger was dead and he denied knowing anything about it. There was a bucket of water in the room, the body was posed but death was given as a heart attack. Hardy was sectioned under the Mental Health Act but not charged with murder. In December 2002 a tramp found legs, an arm and a torso in a wheelie bin behind a pub. All bins in a !h mile area of the estate were then searched for more parts. The local landfill site was searched systematically. Hardy was quickly made a suspect as there was a bad smell reported from his flat. A torso with a hack saw and some knives were found in the same room where the 1st victim had been found, Hardy had disappeared. The forensic strategy was to identify the victims and find the cause of death, then seek evidence to link Hardy, and to identify any possible further victims. One victim was identified as Liz Valad using her breast implants and the second as Bridget McLennan using DNA. An associate of Hardy sold photos to the Sun newspaper who then contacted the police. The photos show posed pictures of both bodies but most importantly they connected the masks seen on the victims, baseball cap, vibrators, and socks to Hardy. They were time specific. Also recovered was CCTV footage of the bin bags being dumped. Hardy was diabetic so had to collect medication at a hospital, all were then put on alert. He was stalled at a hospital until police arrived, found on him was a camera that fit the negatives recovered. DNA was recovered on the weapons, bin bags, fingerprints, and they matched with mechanical fit. No female clothing was found in the flat, other than 'trophy' shoes and a bra of the 1st victim. The Old Bailey found Hardy guilty to three murders and he was sentenced to life in prison. Enquiries are continuing due to more DNA being found at the scene. Methods used in the search for blood, firstly the eye was used with white light, then specialist light and finally luminol.
Page 246
Luminol has health and safety concerns. Its use mostly comes down to interpretation. Luminol is affected by paint, rust, glue, and many other substances. It does not react with whole blood. If the pictures that were produced of the luminol testing were used in court would it be prejudicial as the jury may not understand. It must be interpreted correctly; even the SIO on the case was easily led. The disadvantages are that it can not distinguish between human and animal blood, it is water based, and can create false results and it is only a presumptive test. Advantages are that it is very sensitive, may lead to other evidence and may help with the sequence of events. Expert witnesses must not make misleading statements that may influence or prejudice the jury. Luminol has its place but should be used after everything else has been exhausted, as a last resort. "..................Are Literate Jurors a Problem?" Dr Chris Davies, Forensic Science Service Ltd In most forensic fields it can mainly be said that the expert knows more about the evidence type than the average person, questioned document examiners however are commonly in a position where the jury possess some knowledge of the material being presented. The lecture aims to look at how this evidence is presented and how the knowledge of the jury has to be taken into consideration. Questioned documents and handwriting evidence is well established, and goes way back to the 1800's, an expert can give opinion evidence and evidence of the facts, but it is based on analysis rather than recognition. An example of known writing is used for comparison. It can be in the form of a request sample from the police, from the 'course of business', a diary or such like and identified by a friend or work colleague. The identification can be by a non expert but someone that knows that writing. Most criminal cases are heard in a magistrates court - around 99%. Handwriting is normally heard in the crown court. The jury have knowledge as they can all read and write, therefore is an expert necessary as they know this field? Expert evidence should not be allowed but the jury do not have a strong enough knowledge to reach a safe conclusion. The evidence can be presented two ways which is the choice of the barrister. Firstly present your conclusion, and then give an opportunity to ask how it was achieved. The jury then either accept or reject this information based on the presentation and first impression of the expert. Or secondly the jury can be taken through the details of the examination and make there own conclusions before the expert gives his. The presentation works best if a handwriting chart is prepared. Which is when examples of words from the document are compared to the words of known source. This enables the jury to
science&justice volume 46 ~ 0 . (2006) 4 241 - 251
Meeting Report Science in Court
see them side by side, and it is easy to see and explain. This chart is given to each jury pair. An expert can show and explain the construction, style, slope, and details of each letter. They can also point out differences and explain what may have occurred. Also it is important not to assume that all juries are literate. How do you present to a jury that has a mix of knowledge? Some may start to ignore you. There is no simple answer. There is also the CSI effect, juries use it for a base for fact and can reach acquittals for silly mis-beliefs.
Fingerprint Evidence Kris De-Berg, Metropolitan Police, New Scotland Yard Emotion provoking leaders, change peoples behaviour. A forensic expert in court must be sensitive to this. Fingerprints need to move on and change, challenge, adapt and find alternative court practices. Technology and science has created an opportunity to change and adapt their processes. At present in the UK a 16 ridge identification means a match. Experts must start to communicate more than just to confirm the match as if it is set in stone. To uphold the CJ system all must be able to communicate effectively and speak the same language, you must also be able to respond and react to each other. We have a duty to uphold the CJ system - the further from the centre people are, the less communication there is. As a result it becomes harder to uphold the system. Partnerships must be created to move forward. The use of case conferences and meetings need to be the norm. They can help establish what the defence and prosecution agree and disagree on and what will be questioned in court. How an expert looks, acts and their charisma will be noted and judged almost as much as what they are saying. It is sad in our times indeed but is reality. An expert must remember their role, who they serve and their expertise. They must not present a bias opinion. But must present evidence that is beyond the expertise of the judge and jury. As an expert witness you must be able to articulate and make lay people understand your conclusions and how you reached them. The use of diagrams and visual aids are essential, but treat the use of statistics with care and make sure that the meaning is understood. The Metropolitan police policy includes the training of experts, it encourages dialogue, each borough has forensic managers that must enforce progress, and it shows it is easier to present than to describe. The use of graphic designers to bring scenes to 'life' and enable juries to visualise scenes rather than bus them to it and walk round is a big step forward in these time. These methods can be used for any forensic discipline, graphics can show anything. It can not be used for all crimes but it can help in some. A good deal of progress has been made, but more progress must be made from these foundations.
science&justice Volume 46 N0.4 (2006) 241 - 251
Forensic Odontology Dr Freddie Martin The aim of this talk was to look at some of the ways for presenting evidence in court in relation to pattern injuries caused by bite marks. A bite mark is a very distinctive injury, leaving behind a pattern, which the odontologist can often link to the offender using a series of measurements, moulds and overlays. You normally see classic oval or round shape. Also considered in evidential support is the intercanine distance and patternslfeatures of the teeth. This type of analysis is done by taking dental models; these can be used with an overlay to compare marks. For the presentation of this evidence it is best to supply the jury with photos and acetate overlays to show marks. Dr Martin has found this exercise works better in pairs to make them concentrate and pay attention! 'Two sets of twins' -Two case studies Twin boys, one was bitten and he stated it was the mother. The mother said it was the second twin. The father took photographs and reported the incident. Although the photo was taken by an amateur it did include the entire lower and upper arch, and by measuring the logo on the boys t-shirt a scale could be calculated. The intercanine distance was measured at 3 lmm, 3035mm is an average female bite. Moulds were collected from brother, mother and father to compare to the bite mark. The twin brother could not have made the mark due to having a much smaller intercanine distance and a straighter arch. The intercanine distance of the father was 38mm. The intercanine distance of the mother was 30mm and her two front teeth were considerably longer than her lateral incisors. This would imply that had she bitten her son the two front teeth would make contact first and therefore make a deeper cut. This complied with the mark on the photograph, plus an overlay of the bite matched a mould of her teeth The moulds have to be latterly altered to work for the overlay. The public will accept a bite will leave patterns but a defence will not. You must try and get the evidence in the same scale to make it easier to see and physically fit. The mother was found to have bitten the child, but the case was dismissed. The second case involved tiny twins, where only one of the twins was abused. The mother and separated boyfriend both had access to the children. The mother had a round bite and palatable teeth. She was found to have bitten the child as the boyfriend had dentures and a very distinct bite. The verdict was accidental so no case to answer. In court it is all about the presentation of your evidence and luck!
-
"Where did it all go wrong, Mr Best" Experts and the Courtroom Ian Stebbings, Barrister, Grays Inn, London Mr. Stebbings discussed the tactics Barristers may employ to undermine an expert and how these tactics can be overcome. Most important is to think from the jury's prospective!
Page 247
Meeting Report Science in Court
There are tactics used to get the best and worse from witnes,s. Counsels focus: To obtain evidence to support case Obtain evidence to undermine the other parties case (must disclose the defence to the prosecution) Obtain additional evidence Badger the officer in the case to get the report for the full forensic evidence and events. To clarify the evidence To test the evidence (unreliability) To impeach evidence (memory, perception) To impeach a witness (dishonest, bias, credibility) The expert's role when giving evidence: To present an UNBIASED opinion or conclusion according to the facts supplied To assist the tribunal/court in matters within the expert's field of knowledge or expertise - Do not stray in to or be tempted to comment on something out of your field, politely decline. To present evidence in an uncomplicated manner so that the tribunal of fact can understand it and reach a reasoned judgement based upon it Prepare report then present it clearly so the jury understand it - If you must use technical jargon then explain it in laymen's terms. The courtroom appearance: Think about what you need in the witness box Think where your evidence begins - when you walk through the door - your appearance, first impressions do count Think about the first words that are going to be said the oath or affirmation Think about evidence you are going to give -when you first put pen to paper, and know it Honesty is the only answer. Admit it when you do not know - do not bluff! Avoid clichks and jargon Evidence in chief - some common problems: Listening to the question - only answer what you are asked Not understanding the question - seek clarification, rephrase The 'Pedestal Syndrome' - experts are put on a pedestal by the jury, court, etc. Must maintain balance but do not be afraid to ask for clarification Findings not being backed up by empirical evidence experts must back up what they say, can not be expected to be taken at their word. Use quotes and sources, if needed take the source with you. Assumptions leading to errors - if it can not be backed up by tests 'A picture paints a thousand words' - use diagrams The helpfullhinder approach to evidence. Helpful to prosecution then hinder the defence or vice versa Cross examination - common problems: Failure to answer the question or evasive
Page 248
Failure to admit to mistakes - admit to the error as it is far more honest in the eyes of the jury than to try and cover it up Arrogant approach to the opposition Answer from your head and not from your notes - do not use them like a crib sheet, look like an expert Take your time - do not let anyone rush you If in doubt - stop Be yourself Some keys to assist in cross examination: Cross examination need not be cross Know the opposition Know your case and your role Know the law and the procedures If you need time then ask for it Do not fill gaps - the power of the pause. A pause can be powerful and oppressive -Do not fall for it and add more Ride the bumps - good with the bad and do not get unnerved Do not get dragged away - stick to your area Do not be evasive Stick to what you know Remember who is important - the judge and jury Do not fight the advocate The honest guide - no bluffing Barrister tactics: No leading questions unless the matter not in dispute Cross examination will have leading questions Telling not asking. The spotlight shifts Facts = control Bites sized questions - leading Putting case to witness Building moment to obvious conclusion by series of questions Bringing Their Bones into the Courtroom: Allowing the Dead to Speak for Themselves Julie Saul, Lucas County Coroner 5 Ofice (Toledo, Ohio, USA), Wayne County Medical Examiner's Ofice (Detroit,Michigan, USA) This presentation is to illustrate the use of osteological evidence and portray how the anthropologist acts as an advocate for the victim, allowing them to speak for themselves. An Anthropologist deals with the recovery and analysis of skeletal trauma. When all of the flesh has disappeared from the body and just the bones are left the forensic anthropologist can step in to assist in the quest for the truth. By studying variations in the bones, finding indicators of perimortem trauma, the specialist can build up a picture of how these abnormalities came to be. Bones are 3D so photos and diagrams do not give the full story and are not particular helpful. Somc courts allow the bones to be taken into court to be shown as an exhibit. This has been so powerful that some defendants have decided to plead guilty before standing trial. On this basis it is recommended to meet
sciencetkjustice Volume 46 N0.4 (2006)241 - 251
Meeting Report Science in Court
with the judge and counsels to discuss the results and options which would be presented in the court room. The anthropologist can deduce whether trauma is caused by Blunt force Sharp force Gunshot And can help determine: The direction of the blow The instrument used The position of the victim This is helped by the statements given to the police. In the past Dr Saul has reconstructed skulls and taken them into court. Often not all the pieces are present, normally the skull will have holes but you have enough to tell the story and identify the weapon or type. Sometimes a physical fit is possible when the weapon is found and matches the skull. This is very damming in court. It is possible to look at the fracture types and lanes that provide evidence as to how and where a person was struck. There have been times when a skull shows a story that contradicts the suspect. You then talk to the lawyers and they talk to the suspect, occasionally this has lead to the statement being changed as the evidence so is strong. Rib fractures can be presented that have healed and shown prior abuse, this can add to the evidence of a case. The jury can then see and hold the small bones. Gunshots can show the numbers, entrance and exit as well as the type. Sharp force shows the location, number, direction, the type of instrument and position of the victim. The marks can be hard to find sometimes due to the nature of the force. Bones can take on the colour of the environment from storage and surroundings. When doing a physical fit with a weapon it could have taken off the top layer and altered the colour. This can be seen in the weapon and bones. It has been seen in real life and the colour change was explained and did not jeopardise the fact that it was a perfect fit, the suspect pleaded guilty. The body of a woman was found after her husband (from whom she was separated) reported her missing 2 weeks previously. He claimed not to have seen her, but investigations showed her stomach contents to match the contents of his fridge at the time of the disappearance. Plus luminal revealed the presence of blood in his bath and on numerous linen and towels. The cause of death however was still unknown. Pathologists reported an advanced stage of decomposition around the left side of the neck. Maybe a cut to the neck allowed bacteria to enter causing this abnormal pathological progression? Examination of the neck bones revealed that the tip of the vertebrate had been sheared off, leaving a slice mark. The same skeletal trauma had been seen in the vertebrate of known stabbing cases thus deducing the cause of death.
science&justice Volume 46 ~ o . (2006) 4 241 - 251
Use of evidence allows the victim to speak for themselves. The victim is given a voice but it only helps if we can speak in a clear manner to help secure a conviction.
-
Science in Court Myths, Misunderstandings, Drama and Reality Professor Jim Fraser, Immediate Past President During this presentation Prof. Fraser discussed the role of the expert witness and the legal aspects of their role. The law is adversarial or inquisitorial, proceeds by authority, it uses common sense and is pragmatic, and it uses reasonable doubt, juries and experts. Science is observational and empirical, dynamic and testable, can be counter intuitive, inductive and inferential, and is full of uncertainty and statistical probability. In the same trial there are different standards of proof. The defence need not prove anything, but the prosecution do to secure a conviction. The legal system is meddled with contradictions It is important to stay within your area of expertise. You may be an expert in science but that does not make your opinion on human behaviour any more important than that of the jury. From a legal position, the courts do not know everything and therefore they need experts. The courts decide who has the relevant expertise. The evidence has to be admissible, reliable and relevant. The expert needs to keep the facts separate from opinions. Formal qualifications are not necessary, and at present there are no rules that only witnesses possessing some qualifications can be allowed. Myths make sense and order of the world and allow us to coordinate action and get things done. Myths are based on reasonable and programmatic assumptions but will not be true in all instances. The role of experts is to be a good communicator, and clearly understood. They are restricted by facts, and facts have to be clearly separated from opinions, and have readily available scientific criteria for the testing of evidence. Myths misunderstood Science is about certainty Cross examination is the best way to get to the 'truth' Facts and opinions are separable Shared understanding of science The reality is being asked to read someone's report as the court wants the drama of it being read by a scientist. Science has an astonishing potential to serve justice but its current contribution is far from optimal. There are many reasons for this but at least one of them is the superficiality of the debate until it goes wrong. Then we partake our untested assumptions and expectations about what we believe ought to have happened to set standards and make decisions in hindsight.
Page 249
Meeting Report Science in Court
Digital Evidence Reporting ad Presentation: a Transatlantic Perspective Angus M Marshall (Centre for Forensic Investigation, University of Teesside) and Allen Clarkson (Western Governors University, USA) This talk is a brief insight into collecting, preserving, analysing and presenting digital evidence in court. A comparison between the UK and USA, though the investigative process applies equally across jurisdictions, there are differences in the reporting of digital evidence. All digital evidence appears as a result of a human action. It can be local, remote, in the past or present, but not all of it is directly controlled by humans. Typical digital evidence sources are: Web browser cache (Local) with deliberate browsing, the computer saves a copy of websites on the desk top and keeps a copy. Web page programme features Mobile phone - sent and received calls and texts Data files - through deliberately saving, auto saving, deleted files and slack space File systems and embedded meta-data (who, time, etc) System housekeeping and logging Server, workstation, application and network access logs Email - server retention, back up polices, forwarding to an off site account Documents and data files Websites Digital Evidence in the UK: Two main specialisms exist, mobile phones and computers. These are often looked at by the police or specialist agencies and units. Issues in the UK include convergence and divergence, admissibility, privacy and witness qualifications. As a country we need more specialist practitioners. Digital Evidence in the USA: USA tends to divide forensic technicians from forensic analyses. A technician follows strict procedures for collection and preservation, chain of custody, and certification of the evidence. An analyst provides the expert explanation and context for attorneys and courts. Issues in USA are search and security as well as rules of evidence and roles of expert witnesses. In America the law is hard to understand and is very new so is only developing. In both countries the technology is developing so quickly that the law is often struggling to keep up.
evidence needs to be put in context with other evidence, as it is not conclusive as you can not prove who has been on the computer. Presentation is about credibility. Knowledge and confidence far outweigh the technical tricks. There are also form vs. function arguments. Effective Integration of Specialisms: Operation Relator a Typical Complex Case History for Court Presentation Patricia Wiltshire, University of Aberdeen This presentation reflects that use of set protocols to provided evidence and its subsequent presentation in the court room.
-
Forensic ecology has been used in 150 cases in the UK over 12 years. It includes botany and palynology, sedimentology, pedology, zoology, microbiology and many more. To get the best from ecology certain protocols are necessary found by trail and error over the years. The police most importantly must play their Part. Operation Relator - New Years Eve 2004 a body was found in Well Wood, Hertfordshire. The SIO stopped work and got a team of 'ologists' together and had a briefing the next morning. No one went to the scene, not even the pathologist to prevent contamination. The disciplines used were ecology (botany, palynology, and geology), archaeology and entomology. Priority access to the grave was given to the environmental profiler, the pathologist, followed by the entomologists and archaeologists, the ecologist and finally the police. The body was found in deep woodland and the changes had to be monitored and considered such as, the seasons, and daylight hours. Most places have a specific ecological signature. It can be very dramatic in even a small area. Pollen stays all year round and also leaves a signature. The grave was carefully dug on an island of a small river. The soils were sampled for analysis before excavation. The top millimetres of soil where the suspect would have stood had leaf matter. Samples were taken from the grave fill, edge of the grave and the local area. The body was well preserved and fingerprints allowed rapid identification. The man was a young Albanian. The question was how long had he been there.
Thoughts about cyber crime evidence are that it is limited in range and deposition may require a human act to trigger. But that is dependant on the report quality. You must consider the readers - investigators, other experts, judge and jury. Consider the use of legal and technical terms. Is one report suitable for them all?
Archaeology removed the body and identified the original grave cut. They exposed cut fern (underground steams) and other material evidence. It was initially thought the grave had been cut in the summer due to the cut steams. The basal grave fill had leaf so was at a different time. The section on top of the body was filled full of leaf. Therefore the murder was premeditated and was planned some time in advance.
Importantly you need to work with the legal team to understand the evidence and its implications - facts vs. opinions. Digital
The entomologist stated late October as the date. This led to several Albanian arrests in London. It turned out that the victim
Page 250
science&justice Volume 46 N0.4 (2006) 241 - 251
Meeting Report Science in Court
was a legal worker and the gang who killed him were not legal. They all sent money through him home, but they found out he was keeping it and murdered him. How could they connect the site to the suspects? Evidence used was botany and geology. Pollen and spores as well as minerals were found on the belongings of the suspects, footwear, jeans, and a car. Pollen sticks but minerals are like fibres and can fall easily. The main suspect had driven the car back to Albania. The experts and police went to Albania to the car to collect samples. They also collected samples from the local area to eliminate that as a possibility. Trying to explain sheets of figures to a judge and jury does not work well. 2D does not allow good presentation either. The analysis presents a stratigraphical sequence and is unique. From the analysis they know at least one suspect stepped on the soil in the grave. The graphical evidence was presented, which is excellent through QEMSCAN who did the analysis. The use of charts and graphs to try and explain the soil types and other evidence to the court are recommended. The trail took place in Albania and the judges came to England to hear expert evidence. Palynology uses dramatic and unusual or rare types of exhibits in the comparator samples. It shows the pollen samples. The data is difficult to present as is reams of figures. It is recommended to summarise and condense the data.
Try to create a picture for the court. Use explanations to construct analogies about jigsaws and kaleidoscopes, also show patterns. There is no clear way to show complex data at present.
Fire Investigation Dr Roger Berrett, Fire Investigator This talk looked at the role of the fire investigator and how fire investigation should be based on the scientific method. A primary investigation should be approached with an open mind and no bias, all activities and observations must be appropriately recorded and presented in a clear way to the courts. In court good science starts at the scene, not all exhibits require examination and analysis at the lab, but they will need to be retained. Good notes are essential, as is a good report. Guidance booklets are available for experts. Interpretation of the analysis is vital, and a forensic scientist must be able to interpret the science into good and unbiased facts. In many cases a good report will suffice and the expert witness will not be called to give evidence. Fire investigators can be fire officers with no scientific background.
because these are thought to be products of the combustion of human tissue. The car of the suspect was also contaminated. People involved were the fire investigation team from the Forensic Science Service, M-SCAN, pathologist and toxicologist, 4 fire investigators and Dr Berrett for the defence. Transposing the conditional. Ventilation controlled fires are smoky with low heat output, they smoulder and have small flames, which is true. Fires which are smoky and only had small heat output from small flames and ventilation is false. The expert witness had to attend a 'Voire Dire', a trial within a trial to decide whether the evidence was admissible. The VOC evidence was produced for court using graphs and diagrams to aid interpretation. The suspect was convicted of murder and arson without any weight being placed on the VOC evidence. The defence used crucial evidence that the defendant had received wounds to his body not by the woman defending herself, but by climbing through a gap in a nearby fence to reach his car. The fence was constructed in court and the suspect asked to reinact his movements. In fact the gap in the fence was too small for the defendant to fit through, and the jury found the man guilty. Case study 2 The occupant of a top floor flat dies due to a fire being started on the floor below her. The cause of the fire was three surf boards which were ignited in the stairwell below. The central issue here was that of timing. The police needed to know the length of time that the fire had been burning so they could calculate when the fire was started and place the suspects at the scene of the crime. This can be a problem for fire investigators as there is no easy way of estimating a time. The court therefore allowed the investigator to perform controlled experiments to measure how long it would have taken the fire to progress. The results meant that the three suspects could not have been at the flats at the estimated time of the start of the fire and were found not guilty on these grounds. So not with standing the results of the experiment they were still found not guilty. In courts use photos, film and diagrams to explain the scene and fire development. Some work is starting to be done in peer review and published for fire investigation. Science is ultimately about observations and tact.
Case study 1 The interpretation of smoke evidence. A fire followed a murder; the suspect left the building but returned an hour later to find smoke and a small fire, so then started a second fire. The suspect was later arrested and the clothing and other items were taken for analysis. The items were analysed for various organic compounds in the smoke. The higher aldehydes were an issue
science&justiceVolume 46 N0.4 (2006) 241 - 251
Page 251