Free Expert Witness by Anna Sandiford

interpretation. Thinking time has to be built into the reporting system. What seems like an unsolvable question today might easily be answered in two days’ time, probably at two in the morning when one is half asleep.
    The other factor is that of case limitations. Science is evolving at a rapid pace and, in the long run, will probably achieve anything people want — it’s the age-old story that ifthe human mind can imagine it, it will probably eventuate, even if it’s in 200 years’ time. However, in legal casework it is important to remember that the limitations of each case are the main restricting factors affecting the application of science, not the science itself. Just because DNA didn’t work in a particular case doesn’t mean it won’t work next time; it just means that for this particular case insufficient DNA was present for a profile to be obtained. Even if a DNA profile was obtained from a crime scene, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the owner of the DNA perpetrated the crime.
    Many top-level scientists agree that the CSI effect exists and it affects how people view them. Bob Shaler was the man charged with handling DNA identification after the World Trade Centre bombings, so he knows his stuff. It’s disappointing for many when he says, ‘I was a crime lab guy, but I was never the person portrayed on TV. That person doesn’t really exist.’
    The CSI effect has also been felt as far as organisations like the United Nations, which is involved with what is referred to as ‘wildlife forensics’. This is the branch of forensic science applied to issues around poaching, import/export of rare, exotic and controlled species. It’s a fascinating area of science. The UN is looking to adopt a forensic science approach to assist in managing the problems of illegal fishing. At a UN Food and Agriculture Organization workshop in Rome in 2010 they discussed what techniques could assist and how. As usual, DNA analysis was at the fore, probably for a combination of reasons: it’s very well known and it has huge application. DNA analysis can be used to identify fish species, which in turn can answer the question of whether it’s a species that shouldn’tbe fished. Chemical analyses are also applicable in wildlife forensics for testing bones and other items to identify what nutrients were absorbed by the creature when it was alive and therefore from where they were caught, which can determine if the catch came from a restricted area. I always say that there is no end to the types of casework to which a forensic science approach can be applied and this is a perfect example. Particularly given that one participant at the UN meeting described how a group convicted of illegally trading abalone confessed to learning how to destroy evidence by watching CSI: Miami .
    Just as an aside, and following on with the wildlife DNA theme, a sign that this is an expanding area of forensic science is when sessions specialising in wildlife forensics are included in conferences such as the 2010 Australia and New Zealand Forensic Science Society 20th International Symposium in Sydney.
    Wolves have been a protected species in Europe for some time, and since the 1970s, have been protected in Italy. A number of wolves were found killed and some times mutilated (the muzzle missing from at least one) in the Genoa region. A man was eventually arrested and a necklace of teeth in his possession was seized. The teeth were sent to the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA) where wildlife specialists extracted DNA. As with any case like this, unless there is a database against which to compare results, the results themselves are more or less meaningless. However, there is in fact a DNA database for wolves and other large predators, used to assist with population monitoring. The DNA is gathered from many sources including cadaversand faecal matter (not