Search

• Results indicate forensic evidence may influence judicial outcomes of arson cases. • Identification of ignitable liquid residues (ILR) associated with increased charges laid and guilty findings. • Multiple factors are considered in reaching conclusions about the cause of fires. • Consideration of alternative hypotheses is part of the decision-making process. • Timely briefing police post scene examination contributes to the investigative value. There is a body of published research that has evaluated the contribution of forensic science to the criminal justice system, but many disciplines of forensic science remain unexplored in this regard. The aim of this study was to examine the contribution that forensic fire examination services provide to criminal investigations and court processes in arson cases. Forensic fire examination services differ in a number of ways to the disciplines covered in previous research on the impact of forensic evidence on justice outcomes. Forensic fire examinations involve a combination of scene examination and laboratory analyses, and the results can provide critical evidence of whether an incident that has occurred is a criminal offence (i.e. whether a fire has occurred as the result of an act of arson). Forensic fire examination is also a discipline that has faced challenges and undergone development in recent decades regarding its scientific basis and the issue of contextual bias. In this study, data were collated for 273 structural fires that were examined by the forensic fire services in Victoria, Australia. In this jurisdiction, scene and laboratory forensic services are delivered within short time frames with a focus on providing impartial scientific and investigative services to assist criminal investigations conducted by police. The current dataset was highly skewed in terms of criminal justice outcomes and was not suitable for conducting the planned statistical analyses. Nonetheless, the pattern of findings obtained suggested that the inclusion of forensic evidence which supported the prosecution of arson may be associated with an increased likelihood of suspects being charged and defendants found guilty. Examination of the decision-making process of the forensic fire examiners has provided insight into the variety of evidence that is considered by forensic experts in reaching the important conclusion about the origin and cause of structural fires. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines a number of critical issues associated with the collection of forensic evidence at the crime scene. It argues that the crime scene is one of the most crucial aspects of an investigation and that the scene of the crime is where good forensic science begins. The article begins by demonstrating that high quality and useful evidence leading to accurate and fair criminal justice outcomes can only occur if the scene is processed effectively and professionally. Reducing risk of unjust outcomes is especially important in serious matters, such as homicide and sexual assault, for two reasons. First, the more serious the matter, the more likely that evidence mishandling can lead to wrongful imprisonment. Second, the more serious the matter, the more personnel will be involved, and the more likely that these personnel will be multidisciplinary (law enforcement, medicine, law, forensic science) and multi-organisational (health, justice, private legal/medical, police). Many of these personnel will have divergent work practices and divergent views about what their role is, or should be, during investigations and court trials. Drawing on empirical data from interviews with crime scene examiners, police, forensic scientists, lawyers and judges in a number of Australian jurisdictions, the article discusses the management of the crime scene as a critical issue in the justice process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forensic science is increasingly used in civil and criminal investigations and court proceedings. Over the past decade there has been a marked increase in the number of large collaborative and interagency research projects looking at the effectiveness of forensic science. Whether these large inter- agency projects will be successful is based on two fundamentals: whether the research produces quality outputs and, more importantly, whether the outputs match the expectations of research partners and stakeholders. We discuss the importance of understanding what partners and stakeholders expect and need from projects in which they invest. We explored expectations in a large Australian project assessing ‘The Effectiveness of Forensic Science in the Criminal Justice System’. This collaboration is between two Australian police forces, the National Institute of Forensic Science, and three Australian and one European university. We found that the way stakeholders interpreted the title of the project influenced the direction they wanted the research to take and what outcomes/outputs they expected. We found five different research directions and outcomes/outputs expectations. We suggest that to avoid disappointment, stakeholders should voice their expectations and explicitly define their needs. Since expectations are rarely static, it makes sense to revisit expectations of stakeholders throughout projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is limited information available about the impact of chemical trace evidence and it has tended to be anecdotal and mostly pertaining to court outcomes. Very little is known about the use of chemical trace evidence by police investigators or the impact that this evidence form has on criminal investigations. This survey, which was conducted in Victoria, Australia, was aimed at addressing these inadequacies by capturing information from police investigators about: (i) the purpose of using chemical trace and other forensic services; (ii) the expectation of what value forensic services would provide; (iii) the actual impact of forensic evidence in specified cases; and (iv) the general perceptions of forensic science. Police officers who were the lead investigators in a sample of criminal investigations were selected as the subjects for this survey. Each of the sample cases included chemical trace evidence and many of the cases also included other forms of forensic evidence. The police investigators indicated that they use chemical trace evidence with the expectation that it will assist decision-making in their investigations and contribute to building a case for court. Survey responses indicated that chemical trace evidence can impact on multiple stages of a case and that this form of evidence can play a part in guiding police investigators in making decisions about how their cases progress through the criminal justice system. It was found that an important aspect of the impact of chemical trace evidence can involve connections with other forensic and non-forensic evidence in the cases. The provision of preliminary results, prior to the formal written reports that are issued for use in court, enables chemical trace evidence to contribute timely support to investigations. The findings of this survey study contradict prevailing perceptions that the contribution of chemical trace evidence is limited to the presentation of evidence in court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The focus of this research was to examine the contribution chemical trace evidence makes to criminal justice outcomes. The aim of this work was to place the discipline of chemical trace evidence under the spotlight as there is a dearth of robust research on the impact of this discipline. In this study, data relating to the forensic examinations in a sample of 238 cases which included chemical trace evidence, was collated with data from police investigations and court processes. The findings show that chemical trace evidence is frequently used in combination with other forensic disciplines to support the progress of high-level criminal cases through the justice system. Due to characteristics of how the criminal cases in the dataset were investigated and prosecuted, in combination with the methodology applied in this study, the impact of forensic evidence on the decision to charge suspects could not be analysed quantitatively. However, the impact of forensic evidence on court outcomes in the sample of cases was analysed using methodology that considered the results of the examinations, and the ability of the evidence to provide support for the inclusion or exclusion of persons of interest. The possibility of chemical trace evidence having impact when applied in combination with other forensic disciplines was also examined. It was found that biological examination results was a significant standalone predictor of court outcomes. In contrast, chemical trace examinations did not predict court outcomes when considered as a standalone predictor but examination results of chemical trace evidence in combination with ballistics/tool marks was significantly associated with court outcomes. The findings of this research indicate that, to assess the full impact of any discipline of forensic evidence on the criminal justice system, the analysis must take into account the potential for important synergies that may exist with other forensic and non-forensic evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientists have an ethical responsibility to assist non-scientists to understand their findings and expert opinions before they are used as decision-aids within the criminal justice system. The communication of scientific expert opinion to non-scientist audiences (e.g., police, lawyers, and judges) through expert reports is an important but under-researched issue. Readability statistics were used to assess 111 conclusions from a proficiency test in forensic glass analysis. The conclusions were written using an average of 23 words per sentence, and approximately half of the conclusions were expressed using the active voice. At an average Flesch-Kincaid Grade level of university undergraduate (Grade 13), and Flesch Reading Ease score of difficult (42), the conclusions were written at a level suitable for people with some tertiary education in science, suggesting that the intended non-scientist readers would find them difficult to read. To further analyse the readability of conclusions, descriptive features of text were used: text structure; sentence structure; vocabulary; elaboration; and coherence and unity. Descriptive analysis supported the finding that texts were written at a level difficult for non-scientists to read. Specific aspects of conclusions that may pose difficulties for non-scientists were located. Suggestions are included to assist scientists to write conclusions with increased readability for non-scientist readers, while retaining scientific integrity. In the next stage of research, the readability of expert reports in their entirety is to be explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]