Free Expert Witness by Anna Sandiford Page A

forgetting other possible sources such as fur, skin, bones). Six separate wolves were identified from the necklace using the DNA database. Obviously, not all killers wear their victims’ teeth, but keeping mementos of hunting is not at all unusual and it makes perfect sense to use trophy items to attempt to link a possible offender with an offence.
    Just to finish my ranting about the CSI effect, it was very gratifying to hear one of the world’s foremost DNA scientists and pioneers of DNA in forensics, Dr Peter Gill, say exactly the same thing, specifically about DNA. Dr Gill’s general sentiment was that CSI and similar programmes don’t really represent the way in which forensic science works in the real world. Programmes like those give the impression that if a DNA profile is recovered from a crime scene and you have a suspect then it must be the suspect who committed the crime. It doesn’t necessarily follow that a suspect is guilty of that crime because there are so many other things which have to be considered. Forensic scientists shouldn’t necessarily just report (or review) the science in isolation — the framework into which that science fits is crucial for the proper understanding of what the science is telling the trier of fact (usually a jury and/or a judge). It is then for the trier of fact to decide what weight to apply to that evidence when deciding on the ultimate issue, which is usually down to two choices: guilty or not guilty.
    Forensic science can, of course, also be used for investigative purposes — and it may take an investigation down a different track from the one the investigators were expecting. The important thing is that the investigators should take thatscientific information into account when deciding what to do next — just sticking with their previous track of thought may be neither appropriate nor correct.
    My favourite quote from Dr Gill is: ‘The scientist is not there to prosecute anyone. Whether the individual is found guilty or innocent has no bearing on the science.’ Dr Gill makes an extremely valid point. All forensic scientists should be impartial and unbiased in their reporting — with no exceptions.

Chapter 5
Forensic science break down
    D iscussing forensic science in theory is one thing, knowing how that applies in the real world is entirely different and not at all like CSI . It’s the same with any subject: you can read as much as you like in books and scientific journals but the time you really under stand it is when you actually do it for the first time, hands on. The next best thing is to learn from case studies, particularly for people who are interested in forensic science but not necessarily wanting to do it for a living, such as the sorts of people whom I assume will be reading this book.
    Scientific theory and research do, of course, have their places in forensic science. Ongoing research is the stuff that moves the science forwards which, in turn, allows more and more areas of science to be presented as evidence in court. Without research, forensic science would become stuck in the proverbial rut. It’s also important to refine techniques that have already been developed just so that we can ensure the methods being used are up to the job or are replaced with some thing quicker, more reliable and cheaper, much to the bean-counters’ delight. All forensic laboratories run on tight budgets so the cheaper a technique becomes, the more samples can be tested or the more testing that can be applied in anygiven case, which generally leads to more questions being answered and a greater chance of arrest, charge and successful prosecution of the correct people.
    An example would be development of a new technique to collect pollen from the nasal passages of deceased people. The old method involved several people for several hours in a mortuary waiting for the opportune moment to roll a body and wash out the nasal