Methodological and Technological Advances in Death Investigations: Application and Case Studies

By Ann H Ross and Jason H Byrd

Methodological and Technological Advances in Death Investigations: Application and Case Studies focuses on advancements in both methods and technology in death investigations. Specifically, in the areas of latent fingerprints, facial recognition, wildlife forensics, using aerial vehicles and 3D-ID. The combination of national and international authors and a discussion of the state of forensic science over a decade after the National Academies 2009 Report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, further highlights the boundaries, limitations and context in which these newer technologies and applications act synergistically to enhance forensic science.

• Synthesizes new and emerging technologies to put them in perspective for researchers and practitioners, such as facial recognition, using aerial vehicles and 3D-ID
• Includes case studies throughout that explain how certain advanced technologies impact investigations
• Fills a gap in literature with more cross-disciplinary topics that pertain to death investigations

• Language: English
• Publisher: Academic Press
• Release date: Dec 8, 2023
• ISBN: 9780128193952

Book preview

Methodological and Technological Advances in Death Investigations

Application and Case Studies

Edited by

Ann H. Ross

North Carolina State University, Department of Biological Sciences, Raleigh, NC

Jason H. Byrd

University of Florida College of Medicine, William R. Maples Center for Forensic Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

List of contributors

Preface

Chapter 1. Crime scene investigations response to the NAS report of 2009

1. Introduction

2. Crime scene investigations

3. OSAC response to the NAS report

4. Forensic document examination and other forensic disciplines

5. Crime laboratories response to the NAS report

6. Conclusion

Chapter 2. Techniques for processing porous and nonporous surfaces for latent friction ridge impressions

1. Introduction

2. Nonporous substratesFigure 2.1Cyanoacrylate ester.

3. Nonporous substrates - Wet

4. Porous substrates

5. Porous substrates - Wet

6. Adhesive

7. Blood search

8. Blood enhancements

9. Gun bluing

10. Conclusion

Chapter 3. Artificial intelligence in forensic anthropology: State of the art and Skeleton-ID project

1. Introduction

2. Artificial intelligence: Techniques and fundamentals

3. Overview of the existing artificial intelligence approaches for forensic anthropology techniques

4. Skeleton-ID: Artificial intelligence at the service of physical and forensic anthropology

5. Conclusion and discussion

Chapter 4. A medicolegal approach to postmortem interval estimation

1. Introduction

2. Postmortem change and time since death determination

3. Temperature-based methods

4. Artifacts of decomposition

5. New and novel research methods

6. Limitations and application considerations

7. Conclusion

Chapter 5. Wildlife forensics: Osteology and DNA

1. Introduction

2. Comparative osteology in identification

3. DNA analysis in identification

4. Conclusions

Chapter 6. Unmanned aerial systems for the search and documentation of clandestine human remains

1. Unmanned aerial systems/vehicles and regulations

2. Remote sensing

3. Detection of surface human remains

4. Detection of buried human remains

5. Conclusions

Chapter 7. The use of GIS for cases of comingling

1. Introduction

2. Materials and methods

3. Conclusion

Chapter 8. Unidentified decedent investigation protocols

1. Introduction

2. Role of forensic anthropology in the identification process

3. Unidentified decedents in North Carolina

4. A unified approach to the investigation of unidentified remains using forensic anthropology

5. The importance of reanalyzing cold cases

6. Cold case re-evaluation example

Chapter 9. Forensic isotope provenancing for undocumented border crosser human remains: Application, overview, and case studies

1. Introduction

2. Isotope principles and basics explained

3. Skeletal elements commonly used for isotope analysis, turnover rates, and diagenesis

4. Isoscapes

5. Open access data and the future of isotope research in forensic anthropology

6. Conclusion and future directions

7. Funding

Chapter 10. Mass fatalities and Rapid DNA

1. Introduction

2. The future of disaster victim identification

3. Rapid DNA and disaster management

4. Disciplines used in disaster victim identification

5. The steps surrounding disaster victim identification

6. Utilizing a Family Assistance Center

7. Case study: Camp Fire, Butte County California

8. Identifying the camp fire disaster victims

9. Chapter summary

Chapter 11. Current standards in disaster victim identification

1. Introduction

2. The disaster victim identification process

3. Disaster victim identification standards and guidelines

4. Conclusion

Chapter 12. The applicability of bone mineral density for adult age estimation

1. Introduction

2. Materials and methods

3. Results

4. Discussion

5. Conclusion

Index

Copyright

Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier

125 London Wall, London EC2Y 5AS, United Kingdom

525 B Street, Suite 1650, San Diego, CA 92101, United States

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

ISBN: 978-0-12-819394-5

For information on all Academic Press publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Stacy Masucci

Acquisitions Editor: Elizabeth Brown

Editorial Project Manager: Tracy Tufaga

Production Project Manager: Gomathi Sugumar

Cover Designer: Mark Rogers

Typeset by TNQ Technologies

List of contributors

Saskia Ammer,     University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

Derek T. Anderson,     Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, United States

Eric Bartelink,     California State University, Chico, Chico, CA, United States

Jason H. Byrd,     University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States

AnnMarie Clark,     Maples Center for Forensic Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States

Luke Cunningham,     Raleigh/Wake City-County Bureau of Identification, Raleigh, NC, United States

Tim Gallagher,     District 1 Office of the Medical Examiner, Pensacola, FL, United States

Mike Galloway,     Raleigh/Wake City-County Bureau of Identification, Raleigh, NC, United States

Kim Gin,     Sacramento County Coroner, Retired Kim Gin Professional Solutions, LLC - Owner/CEO, Fairhope, AL, United States

Christine Glenn,     Raleigh/Wake City-County Bureau of Identification, Raleigh, NC, United States

Amanda R. Hale

Department of Biological Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States

SNA International for the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Oahu, HI, United States

Stephanie Hartley,     SNA International Contractor Supporting the DPAA Mission, Alexandria, VA, United States

Oscar Ibáñez

Panacea Cooperative Research S. Coop., Ponferrada, Spain

Andalusian Research Institute in Data Science and Computational Intelligence, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

Faculty of Computer Science, CITIC, University of A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain

Stacey Johnson,     Raleigh/Wake City-County Bureau of Identification, Raleigh, NC, United States

Jan Seaman Kelly

Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE), Las Vegas, NV, United States

Questioned Document Section in the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Las Vegas, NV, United States

Robyn Kramer,     University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

Rubén Martos

Panacea Cooperative Research S. Coop., Ponferrada, Spain

Department of Physical Anthropology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

Pablo Mesejo

Panacea Cooperative Research S. Coop., Ponferrada, Spain

Department of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence and Research Centre for Information and Communications Technologies of the University of Granada, Granada, Spain

Bryce Murray,     Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, United States

Andy Parker,     Raleigh/Wake City-County Bureau of Identification, Raleigh, NC, United States

Nicholas V. Passalacqua,     Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC, United States

Marin A. Pilloud,     Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, United States

Sharon L. Plotkin,     General Section in the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Miami, FL, United States

Gene Robinson,     Gene Robinson Consulting, Wimberley, TX, United States

Ann H. Ross,     Department of Biological Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States

Haley Russo,     Cook County Office of the Medical Examiner, Chicago, IL, United States

Lerah Sutton,     University of Florida Maples Center for Forensic Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States

Sarah Voeller

North Carolina State University, CCSI, International Association for Identification, Raleigh, NC, United States

Cambridge Regional College, Cambridge, England, United Kingdom

Daniel J. Wescott,     Texas State University, Department of Anthropology, Forensic Anthropology Center at Texas State, San Marcos, TX, United States

Preface

The premise for this volume, Methodological and Technological Advances in Death Investigations, was to encompass a broad range of forensic science disciplines. Our aim was to bring together these diverse disciplines as medicolegal death investigations are inherently multidisciplinary in nature. Furthermore, we sought to highlight recent advances within various forensic science disciplines.

Regarding crime scene investigations, Chapter 1 by Kelly and Plotkin delves into how these investigations evolved in response to the 2009 National Academy of Sciences report. In Chapter 2, Parker and colleagues provide a comprehensive guide on the latest techniques for lifting and processing latent prints from various surfaces. Watson and Wescott, in Chapter 6, present an innovative method of using unmanned aerial systems for locating clandestine burials in large remote areas. Chapter 7, authored by Voeller, introduces a method for reassociating skeletal elements in a commingled mass grave scenario using Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping methods. Sutton and Gallagher, in Chapter 4, explore the complexities of establishing the postmortem interval, highlighting the persistent challenges despite extensive research in this area.

New approaches in forensic anthropology are addressed in Ammer and coworker's chapter on using stable isotopes to establish provenance (e.g., geolocation) of unidentified human remains along the southern border of the United States and its use in identifying border crosser deaths. In Chapter 12, Hale and colleagues address the challenges of adult age estimation using bone mineral density as a viable option to overcome the shortfalls of traditional age estimation methods that rely on macroscopic bone degeneration. Chapter 3 by Martos and colleagues highlights the application of computer science such as AI to issues in forensic anthropology.

Standards for identification in mass fatality incidents are presented in Chapter 10 by Gin and Chapter 11 by Byrd and Ross. Chapter 5 by Clark, Hartley, and Byrd outlines methods for differentiating human and nonhuman skeletal remains especially useful in settings of human and nonhuman commingling. In Chapter 8, Ross and Passalacqua present protocols for a multidisciplinary approach to investigating and identifying unidentified human remains that include medicolegal experts such as medical examiners and forensic anthropologists, law enforcement, and IGG to resolve these complicated cases.

The chapters within this volume collectively demonstrate the multifaceted nature of medicolegal death investigations, showcasing the interconnections between various forensic science disciplines.

Chapter 1: Crime scene investigations response to the NAS report of 2009

Sharon L. Plotkin¹, and Jan Seaman Kelly²,³     ¹General Section in the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Miami, FL, United States     ²Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE), Las Vegas, NV, United States     ³Questioned Document Section in the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Las Vegas, NV, United States

Abstract

The Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 became a law in November 2005. Under this statute, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was authorized by Congress to conduct a study on forensic science. Outcomes reported from this study indicated that while a great deal of analysis exists of the requirements in the discipline of DNA, there exists little to no analysis of the remaining needs of the community outside of the area of DNA. This chapter introduces the NAS report, its historical background, implications, and future. Furtherance, an examination of the various disciplines in forensic science, which provides critical evidence that has contributed to successful outcomes in prosecution and conviction of criminals as well as to the exoneration of innocent people. The disciplines addressed in this chapter include crime scene investigations, Organization of Scientific Area Committees, and the crime laboratories response to the NAS report.

Keywords

Crime laboratories; Crime scene investigations; CSI effect; Daubert; NAS report; NIST; OSAC; Proficiency testing; Reliability; Standards; Validity

1. Introduction

Sources of bias are well known in science, and a large amount of effort has been devoted to understanding and mitigating them. The goal is to make scientific investigations as objective as possible, so the results do not depend on the investigator. Additionally, science seeks to publish its discoveries, findings, and conclusions so that they are subjected to independent peer review; this enables others to study biases that may exist in the investigative method or attempt to replicate unexpected results.

The premium that science places on precision, objectivity, critical thinking, careful observation and practice, repeatability, uncertainty management, and peer review enables the reliable collection, measurement, and interpretation of clues in order to produce knowledge.

The 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 US. 579 specified a forensic discipline must satisfy the following five factors in order for expert testimony to be admitted: (1) whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) its known or potential error rate; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and (5) whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community. Daubert opened the door for the law to create a framework of how forensic science can be a reliable source in answering questions of the court. The impact of Daubert was significant as it initiated research, proficiency testing, published standards for all facets of a forensic discipline, and the acceptance of the forensic science by the scientific community. Prior to 2009, forensic science and the law were separate entities with each following their own paradigms.

The Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 became law in November 2005. Under this statute, the NAS was authorized by Congress to conduct a study on forensic science. Outcomes reported from this study indicated that while a great deal of analysis exists of the requirements in the discipline of DNA, there exists little to no analysis of the remaining needs of the community outside of the area of DNA (NAS, 2009). As a result, funds were provided to the NAS to create an independent Forensic Science Committee. This committee comprised members of the forensics community representing operational crime laboratories, medical examiners, and coroners; legal experts; and other relevant scientists.

In February 2009, the NAS issued their report (Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward) in response to growing concerns from the legal system and the public regarding the effectiveness and scientific foundation of the forensic disciplines being applied by law enforcement agencies and crime laboratories. While the forensic science practitioner community disagreed with many of the findings of the report, there was general consensus that additional research, funding, and standards were in order (Ballou, 2019).

The focus here is not on the reliability or validity of particular forensic techniques but rather on quality control systems for laboratories.¹ To achieve qualitative control systems that are consistent throughout the United States, the report listed 13 recommendations.

1. Establishing the National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS)

2. Establishing standard terminology for reports and testifying

3. Addressing issues of accuracy, reliability, and validity in the disciplines

4. Separating public forensic laboratories from law enforcement agencies administration or control

5. Researching sources of human bias in forensic science

6. Developing tools for advancing measurement, validation, reliability, information sharing, proficiency testing and to establish protocols for examinations, methods, and practices

7. Require mandatory accreditation of all forensic laboratories and certification for all forensic science practitioners

8. Laboratories should establish routine quality assurance procedures

9. Establish a national code of ethics with a mechanism for enforcement

10. Support higher education in the form of forensic graduate programs, to include scholarships and fellowships

11. Improve the medico-legal death investigation system

12. Support AFIS interoperability through the development of standards

13. Support the use of forensic science in homeland security

The 2009 NAS Report critiqued instrument-based and examiner-based forensic science disciplines and found the fundamental requirements of reproducibility, reliability, and accuracy in results were not met in the examiner-based disciplines. Unlike DNA, footwear or tool mark evidence identification/elimination is based on the expert's training and experience to determine the significance of individual characteristics. In forensic document examination, the range of variation in the combination of characteristics in a handwritten text is the basis for a conclusion. The committee was concerned the significance of the characteristics has not been researched to determine the reliability of methods used in pattern/impression disciplines.

Historically, the two greatest inhibitors of forensic science have been the lack of adequate funding and a uniform quality control system. The NAS recommendations include an adequately funded federal program to provide the financial support for forensic disciplines and the medical examiner system. The necessity of adequate federal funding and a uniform quality control system cannot be overemphasized as the majority of law enforcement forensic operations are state and local agencies with limited budgets. The consequence of underfunding state and local agencies can lead to inadequate crime scene collections or forensic examinations resulting in unsolved cases and wrongful convictions (Garrett, 2020). The lack of comprehensive quality control measures impacts court testimony as the admission of flawed or misleading evidence can lead to an erroneous conviction (NAS, 2009).

The 10th anniversary of the NAS Report revealed progress toward the improvement of forensic science. The Department of Justice, with the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST), established the National Commission on Forensic Science (2015 through 2017). The Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) was established for development of standards in the forensic disciplines. NIST funding to conduct research on the accuracy, reliability, and validity of existing forensic methods and to develop new methods continues through grants awarded to forensic practitioners and research scientists. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded Human Factors working groups (Ballou, 2019).

The Honorable Judge Harry T. Edwards acknowledged on the 10th anniversary of the 2009 NAS Report that progress had occurred, but added more progress was needed. The failure to establish a strong, independent, strategic, coherent, and well-funded federal program [with a culture that is strongly rooted in science] to support and oversee the forensic science disciplines has not been established (Edwards, 2019). Such a program would ensure forensic testimony provided to jurors is science-based through research and testing, adherence to task-specific standards, and uniform quality control procedures.

The independence of forensic laboratories is listed as the fourth recommendation, which is a strong indicator of the importance in separating forensics from law enforcement agencies. The Houston Forensic Science Center (HFSC) in Houston, Texas, adopted a management-oriented approach as a corporation and is the only independent forensic agency in the United States. Revising processes through standards, blind testing, and a stringent quality control system has been HFSC's foundation for success (Garrett). Even though separation of forensics from law enforcement may well be the most difficult recommendation to complete, it is anticipated that separation of forensic laboratories from law enforcement agencies will be the norm.

The impact of the 2009 NAS Report has and will continue to be far-reaching. The linchpin for future progress in implementing and supporting all 13 recommendations is federal funding. The federal government's commitment to adequate funding will result in comprehensive forensic standards and uniformity in quality control procedures to ensure continuity in forensic evidence recovery, examination, reporting, and testimony throughout the United States and reduce or eliminate wrongful convictions.

According to the NAS Report, various disciplines in forensic science provided important evidence that has contributed to the successful prosecution and conviction of criminals as well as to the exoneration of innocent people. For the past 2 decades, advances in forensic science disciplines have been able to demonstrate that some of these disciplines have greater potential in assisting law enforcement in identifying criminals. Many crimes that may have gone unsolved are now being solved because forensic science is helping to identify offenders. Those advances, however, also reveal that, in some cases, vital information and courtroom testimony may be based on faulty forensic science analyses and may contribute to wrongful convictions of innocent people led by inaccurate expert testimony and the admittance of flawed or misleading evidence. Consideration must be made that if we are to respond to the success of forensic science that the potential danger of giving unfounded weight to evidence and testimony, which resulted from imperfect testing and analysis must be recognized (NAS, 2009).

Ensuring continued improvements will assist law enforcement officials while involved in investigations to identify offenders with higher reliability. This will pave the way to reduce the occurrence of wrongful convictions (NAS, 2009).

2. Crime scene investigations

The NAS report also states that there exists a disparity among forensic science operations at all agencies and jurisdictional levels and agencies due to funding, access to analytical instrumentation, the availability of skilled, trained personnel, certification, accreditation, as well as oversight. The quality of forensic practice in most disciplines differs greatly due to the absence of adequate training, continuing education, rigorous mandatory certification and accreditation programs, and adherence to vigorous performance standards. It is because of this variation in qualifications in hiring crime scene personnel as well as the requirements once hired that brings us to the point of crime scene personnel. These shortfalls continue to be a viable threat to the quality and credibility of forensic science practice (NAS, 2009).

As we examine the role of crime scene investigators, the NAS report articulated that this personnel is responsible for searching and collecting evidence at the scene and preservation and securing evidence in packaging that prevents manipulation, alteration, and/or destruction with its purpose of being submitted to labs for analysis (NAS, 2009).

Dr. Saferstein was a chief forensic scientist who retired in 1991 from the New Jersey State Police (NJSP) and then worked at the NJSP Forensic Science Bureau for 21 years. He was a leading national expert and author in the field of forensic science and was a highly recognized and a sought-after consultant, contributing to many high-profile cases throughout the country (https://news.aafs.org/section-news/richard-saferstein-phd-retired-fellow-of-the-criminalistics-section-july-2017). In a conversation with Dr. Richard Saferstein, he commented that in many of the private cases, he testified in as an expert that it has been the handling the evidence that had been the most contested point in trial testimony (Fig. 1.1).

Figure 1.1  Richard Saferstein. Courtesy of Teresa 'Lilly' White, PhD.

Dr. Richard Saferstein headed the crime laboratory of the New Jersey State Police, which is one of the largest forensic laboratories in the United States. Dr. Saferstein served as an expert witness over 2000 times in nearly 150 federal and state courts involving a variety of forensic issues. Dr. Saferstein authored numerous papers notable textbooks in criminalistics and forensic science (https://www.blogtalkradio.com/behindtheyellowtape/2011/10/15/forensic-science-discussion-w-richard-saferstein).

Evidence must be recognized as possessing the ability to link an individual to a crime scene along with a possibility of their involvement with the crime. Equally as important is the ability of physical evidence to exonerate or exclude suspects from suspicion if physical evidence collected at a crime scene is found to be different from standard/reference samples collected from that suspect. The purpose of physical evidence recognition is so that it can be collected and analyzed. If untrained crime scene personnel respond to scenes and lack the training to accomplish this important role, then critical evidence may be overlooked (Saferstein, 2012).

In understanding the importance of physical evidence, Dr. Bruce Hyma (chief medical examiner Miami Dade Medical Examiner's Office-deceased) stated that the body rarely solved the case. It is the evidence that is located on the crime scene that does (Fig. 1.2).

Figure 1.2  Bruce Hyma. Courtesy of the Miami Dade Medical Examiner Department.

Dr. Bruce Hyma, the longtime director of the Miami-Dade Medical Examiner's Office and a renown figure in the forensic pathology community, was appointed the Chief Medical examiner in 2001 (https://alumniassociation.mayo.edu/obituaries/bruce-a-hyma-m-d-path-1987/).

However, the background, training, and experience of crime scene personnel can affect the outcome of such evidence. If the evidence is not collected and preserved in such a way to prevent any alteration, manipulation, or destruction from occurring, then the science performed thereafter cannot be true.

If evidence and laboratory tests are improperly handled and/or analyzed, incorrect outcomes result in a false sense of significance. Bias, incompetence, or a lack of internal controls for the evidence introduced into labs can very likely result in juries being misled leading to wrongful convictions or exoneration. The possible outcome of this injustice could result in juries losing confidence in the dependability of testimony and valid evidence might be discounted whereby innocent persons might be convicted or guilty individuals acquitted (NAS, 2009).

The NAS report also reported the importance of the CSI Effect and how this impacted the views of those laypersons (i.e., television viewers) outside the forensic disciplines. Media attention has focused on what is being called the CSI Effect, named for popular television shows that are focused on police forensic evidence investigation. The CSI Effect refers to the real-life consequences of exposure to Hollywood's version of the presentation of law, order, and science (Fig. 1.3).

Figure 1.3  CSI Effect. Courtesy of Andi R. Plotkin.

The CSI Effect was first articulated by Maricopa County (Arizona) District Attorney Andrew Thomas. Thomas complained that juries had become less likely to convict because CSI had improperly heightened their evidentiary expectations of the prosecution and, in turn, was causing an epidemic of wrongful acquittals (https://oxfordre.com/criminology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-40).

According to one 2006 weekly Nielsen rating.

• 30 million people watched CSI on one night.

• 70 million watched at least one of the three CSI shows.

• 40 million watched two other forensic dramas, Without a Trace and Cold Case.

• Those ratings translated into this fact: five of the top 10 television programs that week were about scientific evidence in criminal cases. Together, they amassed more than 100 million viewers (https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/csi-effect-does-it-really-exist).

    Jurists and directors of crime laboratories articulate that jurors have every case that will contain forensic evidence will be conclusive. The fictional characters portrayed in these television show present an unrealistic representation of the daily operations of crime scene investigators and the capabilities of crime laboratories (NAS, 2009).

    A study by Schweitzer and Saks found that compared to those who do not watch CSI, CSI viewers were more critical of the forensic evidence presented at the trial, finding it less believable. Viewers of these forensic science shows stated more confidence in their verdicts than did nonviewers. (Jurimetrics, Vol. 47, p. 357, Spring 2007).

    Prosecutors and defense attorneys have reported jurors questioning them in the courtroom, citing reasonable doubt and refusing to convict because they believed that other evidence was available and not adequately examined (NAS, 2009).

    According to the CSI shows, cases are solved in an hour, highly technical analyses are completed within minutes, and the capabilities of the lab and instrumentation are often exaggerated, misrepresented, misleading, and fabricated. In courtroom scenes, forensic examiners state with certainty their findings or a match (between evidence and suspect), along with a demonstration of the stated technique used to determine the result. These television programs suggest that convictions are quick with no mistakes being made (NAS, 2009).

    So, what does this all mean and how can we as a forensic discipline overcome these challenges?

• Crime scene investigations begin at a local, state, or federal level with investigators responding to the crime scene. Important standard operating procedures must be in place to guide all personnel in the collection and preservation of evidence.

• If investigators do not recognize and adhere to rigorous standards in the collection and preservation of evidence on crime scenes, then the science conducted thereafter cannot be true help and accurate.

• Crime scene investigators must be able to apply scientific methods, techniques, skill, and knowledge in the application of the law and the recognition of the complexities involved with the examining physical evidence at crime scenes.

• Identifying and setting industry standards is critical for guaranteeing that the professionals responsible for the investigation of the crime scene are skilled and trained to approach the identification, collection, and analysis of physical evidence in a similar fashion.

• Certification from the International Association for Identification in the areas of crime scene investigations, analyst, and reconstruction should be implemented to ensure that current industry standards and procedures are being addressed and complied with (Fig. 1.4).

Figure 1.4  International Association for Identification. Source: https://www.crimesceneinvestigatoredu.org/csi-certification/.

The International Association for Identification (IAI), which holds the distinction of being the largest forensic association in the world, is focused on the physical forensic science disciplines. Within the field of crime scene investigation, individuals may be certified in one of four designations.

• Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst

• Certified Crime Scene Reconstructionist

• Certified Crime Scene Investigator

• Certified Crime Scene Analyst

In the end, we must ensure that we who are involved in the forensics sciences remain true to its purpose: to provide continuous improvements in forensic science practices to reduce the number of wrongful convictions. To ensure the integrity of the sciences remains intact, we must be willing to undertake compliance with nationally recognized policies, accreditation, certifications, and adherence to rigorous standards in pursuit of the truth.

3. OSAC response to the NAS report

Contributor: Steven Johnson, Past President, the IAI Chair, OSAC FSSB.

In response to the NAS report, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) was approached by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in late 2013 to consider a collaborative enterprise that would unify the existing forensic Scientific Working Groups (SWGs) and be dedicated to the establishment of forensic standards across a broad spectrum of disciplines. Other forensic associations, having been made aware of the NIST/AAFS collaboration, asked to have a seat at the table. In January of 2014, representatives from the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME), Society of Forensic Toxicologists (SOFT), Association of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners (AFTE), American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD), and the International Association of Identification (IAI) joined AAFS at a meeting with NIST in Gaithersburg, MD to discuss this enterprise and establish a path forward. What resulted was the creation of the OSAC for the Forensic Sciences, a group of over 550 dedicated professionals representing the interests of over 15,000 forensic science practitioners and their respective disciplines.

In early January 2014, I was the first Vice President of the IAI and was asked by then President, Lesley Hammer, to represent the IAI's interests on the newly created OSAC. As a part of this enterprise, OSAC established a leadership group identified as the Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB) and placed representatives from each of the aforementioned forensics associations, six research representatives, three resource committee chairs, and a NIST Ex-Officio member. These 20 individuals represented a broad cross-section of forensic experience and provided exceptional direction at the earliest stages of OSAC's genesis. The mission of OSAC is "(s)trengthening the nation's use of forensic science by facilitating the development of technically sound standards and guidelines and encouraging their use throughout the forensic science community."² It is important to note that OSAC is not a standards development organization (SDO). The role of OSAC is to create draft standards. There are several SDOs available to the organizations dedicated to drafting and implementing standards. Among them are the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), American Dental Association (ADA) and, most recently, the AAFS Academy Standards Board (ASB). These SDOs review standards, provide expert input, allow for public comment, and issue approved standards for implementation. These SDOs are critical to getting the developed standards to the community with consensus buy-in. The OSAC enterprise has a related but different approach.

First, a little history. OSAC was initially created with a hierarchy that had the FSSB at the top providing strategic guidance and final approval for drafted standards and guidelines for publication on an OSAC Registry.³ The organization is governed by a Charter and Bylaws⁴ and provided further direction with Terms of Reference⁵ for each element of the OSAC hierarchy. The hierarchy included Scientific Area Committees (SACs) that further represented 23 (and later 25) forensic discipline subcommittees. The FSSB, SACs, and subcommittees may also create Task Groups (TGs) that can assist with the standards creation process. These SACs and subcommittees were affiliated based on the forensic functionality and linkage between disciplines. In the chart below, you can see the original OSAC organizational structure⁶ (Fig. 1.5).

Figure 1.5  OSAC organizational structure. Reprinted with permission from the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science.

3.1. OSAC organizational structure

OSAC members and affiliates make up a multi-level organization consisting of.

• A Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

• Seven Scientific Area Committees (SACs)

• 22 discipline-specific subcommittees (SCs)

• FSSB Resource Task Groups

• Following our core principles of balance, consensus, harmonization, and openness, these experts work together to facilitate the development of scientifically sound standards and guidelines for the forensic science community.

Additionally, the OSAC Program Office (OPO) consists of NIST staff who provide operational support to the organization.

https://www.nist.gov/organization-scientific-area-committees-forensic-science/osac-organizational-structure.

Draft standards were created by each subcommittee, reviewed and approved by the respective SAC, forwarded to three Resource Committees (RCs) and a Statistics TG representing interests from a Legal, Human Factors, Quality Infrastructure and Metrology perspective and finally, after a public comment period, pushed up the chain to the FSSB for final adjudication and placement on the Registry. The Registry originally listed standards and guidelines separately but, shortly after the establishment of OSAC, all documents for the registry were considered standards moving forward. Additionally, OSAC keeps its membership and the public aware of the enterprise's progress with the publication of a monthly Standards Bulletin,⁷ quarterly newsletter⁸, and an annual report.⁹

OSAC was, in essence, a plane being built as we were flying it. There were a lot of lessons learned during the first 4 years of existence, and, in the summer of 2017, NIST sent out a Request for Information (RFI) to solicit input from the public on what form OSAC should take in the future. NIST's original intent was to get OSAC started and find another home to manage and fund the enterprise after an indeterminate period (five to 10 years). After reviewing dozens of suggestions, NIST agreed to continue the management of the OSAC enterprise for the foreseeable future but recognized the need for improvement and restructuring of the enterprise to improve efficiencies and speed up the standards creativity process.

OSAC is currently made up of over 550 forensic practitioners, academics, statisticians/metrologists, researchers, human factors scientists, the legal community, and quality assurance experts to serve on subcommittees in a more collaborative effort. With the proposed changes coming out of the RFI review, none of the current members would be asked to step down. Their participation, it is hoped, would be impacted in a positive way. Rather than having the Legal, Human Factors, Quality Infrastructure RCs, and Statistics TG review the proposed standards at the end of the process, members of those groups were embedded in the subcommittees to be a part of process from the beginning. All these members will remain affiliated as TGs moving forward. SACs would be restructured, and subcommittees would be consolidated or expanded. Additionally, the role of the FSSB as a final arbiter of the standards will be eliminated and allow the SACs and public comment to complete the process ahead of submission to an authorized SDO. Included in this process will be Standards Technical Review Boards (STRBs) that will determine viability of those standards that must meet the criteria for said technical appropriateness. Ultimately, all these standard documents created by the OSAC subcommittees and placed on the registry of approved (and now proposed) standards must be vetted through one of many approved SDOs. Once the SDO approves a standard, it can be made available through that organization to forensic science service providers and practitioners. In addition to the creation of standard, guideline, and best practice documents, OSAC created a forensic lexicon¹⁰ with over 4000 terms, including OSAC Preferred Terms that should be considered during document development. These terms will be managed with edits, additions, and removals to be considered on a continuous basis. Finally, OSAC invites organization subcommittees and TGs to propose Technical Publication¹¹ that likely fall outside the definition of a standard or guideline.

Membership on OSAC is voluntary and limited to two, 3-year terms. These terms were staggered at the inception of OSAC, and, as we entered our fifth year of existence in October of 2018, approximately one-third of the OSAC membership must be replaced with new experts. Mindful of this, OSAC maintains a database of affiliate members (who can and do assist with the current standards development effort) and a pool of applicants from which to draw for openings across the OSAC spectrum. OSAC 2.0, as it is currently being socialized, will roll out effective October 1, 2020. There will be some changes to the structure, but the overall mission of OSAC will remain the same; providing professional and scientifically grounded standards to ensure the improvement of best practices in the forensic science community.

4. Forensic document examination and other forensic disciplines

Jan Seaman Kelly—Forensic Document Examiner since 1987. Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE) and a Fellow of the Questioned Document Section in the AAFS.

The 2009 NAS Report committee expressed concern when addressing specific disciplines. Handwriting examinations may be of some value, and the committee recognized the limited research to quantify the reliability and reproducibility of examination methods used by trained forensic document examiners. For shoeprint and tire tracks and toolmarks/firearms examinations, the committee was concerned over the limited amount of research focused on the number of characteristics required for an identification. The committee also commented on the lack of standard terminology in shoeprint/tire track case reports. The committee addressed specific issues in each of the pattern/impression disciplines; however, the criticisms focused on the lack of research to determine if the results of examiner-dependent examinations are reliable, accurate, and valid.

Although there has been only limited research to quantify the reliability and replicability of the practices used by trained document examiners, the committee agrees that there may be some value in handwriting analysis. Analysis of inks and paper, being based on well-understood chemistry, presumably rests on a firmer scientific foundation. However, the committee did not receive input on these fairly specialized methods and cannot offer a definitive view regarding the soundness of these methods or of their execution in practice (NAS, 2009).

Forensic document examination standards were published through ASTM between 1993 and 2012. In 2013, SWGDOC assumed the role as publisher of the standards in 2013. The published standards that do not involve instrument-based examinations are: The Scope of Work of a Forensic Document Examination, Minimum Training Requirements for Forensic Document Examination, Terminology Relating