Forensic intelligence: deregulation or return to the roots of forensic science?

The Sydney declaration - Revisiting the essence of forensic science through its fundamental principles

Unlike other more established disciplines, a shared understanding and broad acceptance of the essence of forensic science, its purpose, and fundamental principles are still missing or mis-represented. This foundation has been overlooked, although recognised by many forensic science forefathers and seen as critical to this discipline's advancement. The Sydney Declaration attempts to revisit the essence of forensic science through its foundational basis, beyond organisations, technicalities or protocols. It comprises a definition of forensic science and seven fundamental principles that emphasise the pivotal role of the trace as a vestige, or remnant, of an investigated activity. The Sydney Declaration also discusses critical features framing the forensic scientist's work, such as context, time asymmetry, the continuum of uncertainties, broad scientific knowledge, ethics, critical thinking, and logical reasoning. It is argued that the proposed principles should underpin the practice of forensic science and guide education and research directions. Ultimately, they will benefit forensic science as a whole to be more relevant, effective and reliable.

Traceology, criminalistics, and forensic science

There is a serious issue within the forensic science community, which even extends outside of the field. The role of the scientist in the investigation of crime has been increasingly confined to the laboratory, which has been accompanied by the conflation of the terms forensic science and criminalistics. This unfortunate situation has been festering for years. To make matters worse, the era of the proactive, problem-defining, criminalist (generalist) is waning, and possibly over. Present-day "criminalists" are treated as little more than reactive, protocol-constrained, laboratory technicians, with few, if any, consequential crime scene roles. In most cases, these "criminalists" merely respond to routine requests from prosecutors and police. The absence of science at the front end of forensic investigations, i.e., the scene, has resulted in biased, ineffective, inefficient, and/or erroneous outcomes with immediate and long-term societal impacts. To disentangle this imbroglio, we propose the use of another term, traceology, which has seen limited use worldwide except in the field of archaeology. With respect to criminalistics, this term has been previously proposed by Margot (20-21). Traceology is an historical science, dealing with the examination, analysis, and scientific interpretation of event traces (signs or remnants) of earlier activities. In this commentary, we define and redefine familiar, but ambiguous, terms and concepts with the hope of recapturing the essence of criminalistics (32), which we suggest is best termed traceology.

Contemporary issues in forensic science-Worldwide survey results

Forensic science continues to be openly challenged and criticized. The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of forensic workplaces and the perceived current and potential future issues from forensic scientists via a detailed survey. An online survey was designed and disseminated to forensic practitioners and researchers worldwide. 544 participants from more than 20 countries took part in the survey. Participants personally rated ten forensic disciplines with subjective methodologies, responded on a five-point Likert scale to 22 statements that addressed subjectivity and objectivity, validation and proficiency testing and error and bias and answered demographic questions relating to their workplace type, level of experience and qualifications. Participants also commented freely on forensic issues specifically important to them. The purpose of this paper is to provide the survey results and consensuses captured on several key issues. Overall participants believed forensic science must be valid and reliable and supported development of objective methodologies, validation and further investigation into the application statistics, use of error rates and implications of cognitive bias. Participants raised consensus concerns with the provision of expert evidence and other broader issues. This information and understanding from the forensic front line are essential for forensic science moving forward to best address current challenges and criticisms not only of forensic evidence for the court but for applications of forensic science beyond the courtroom.

Optimising engagement between forensics & policing: Avoiding the dialogue of the deaf

Forensic science is increasing in the scale and scope of available or emergent capabilities to aid criminal investigations. Concurrently, investigations are increasing in complexity, with disciplines such as forensic ecology having an input into police work. The many specialisms comprising forensic ecology are helping authorities to counteract the trans-national and inter-jurisdictional criminal operations which are driven by global interconnectedness and the Internet. These factors, when combined with a rise in public oversight, and the media's unrealistic expectation that all crimes are solvable, produce a challenging environment for police investigators. This paper explores the author's experience of effective communication between police investigators and forensic practitioners and reflects on an emergent consultancy model of engagement. This option presents a change in the police operating environment, often with improved investigative outcomes.

Inter-regional digital forensic knowledge management: needs, challenges, and solutions

Increasing demand for digital evidence in criminal investigations is driving decentralization of forensic capabilities closer to the crime scene. Law enforcement agencies are struggling to keep pace with technological developments, cybercrime growth, and scientific advances. In federated environments, digital forensic knowledge and practices vary widely across regions. To reduce delays, wasted resources, missed opportunities, mistakes, and misinterpretations, there is a pressing need to balance the democratization of digital forensic capabilities with knowledge management and sharing between decentralized regions. There are multiple forms of knowledge to be managed, including procedural, technical, investigative, scientific, behavioral, crime analysis, and forensic intelligence. In addition, there are multiple knowledge producers and consumers, including police investigators, digital forensic practitioners, criminal intelligence analysts, attorneys, and judges. Knowledge management becomes even more challenging when multiple interdependent regions are involved, speaking different languages. Taking all of these factors into consideration, this work presents an inter-regional knowledge management solution for improving the quality, consistency, reliability, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and return on investment of digital forensic capabilities. The basis of this work is a community-driven initiative of Swiss regional police authorities. Interviews were conducted with 15 digital forensic units to determine their current knowledge management practices and needs. The results were then generalized into a prioritized set of requirements for inter-regional digital forensic knowledge management that may be applicable in other countries. These requirements were used to evaluate knowledge management platforms, and one was selected. Implementation, operations, and maintenance challenges of an inter-regional digital forensic knowledge management platform are discussed.

Management of crime scene units by Quebec police senior managers: Insight on forensic knowledge and understanding of key stakeholders

What do policing leaders think and know of forensic science? Beyond crime scene investigators or detectives, how do police senior managers perceive the role, utility and limitations of forensic science? Very few empirical studies have addressed the issue. Forensic scientsts should be concerned about the perception that law enforcement senior managers have of their discipline for two reasons. First, strategic and financial decision-makers are obviously key players in the overall administration and provision of forensic science, either as a supervisor, money provider or as a customer. Second, literature has highlighted that other actors involved in forensic science underestimate the scope and possibilities offered by forensic science, hence limiting its exploitation and potential. Following interviews with 18 police senior managers from Quebec (Canada), this study shows that they generally restrict forensic science to a reactive discipline whose role and utility is to identify offenders and support the Court. This understanding of forensic science, like that of many others including a significant share of forensic scientists, differs from the perception of other police activities in modern law enforcement agencies where proactive action is sought. Considering these findings and the growing body of literature which calls for forensic science to connect more tightly with policing and security, we advocate a more extensive education of police leaders regarding the scope of forensic science.

The end of the (forensic science) world as we know it? The example of trace evidence

The dominant conception of forensic science as a patchwork of disciplines primarily assisting the criminal justice system (i.e. forensics) is in crisis or at least shows a series of anomalies and serious limitations. In recent years, symptoms of the crisis have been discussed in a number of reports by various commentators, without a doubt epitomized by the 2009 report by the US National Academies of Sciences (NAS 2009 Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward). Although needed, but viewed as the solution to these drawbacks, the almost generalized adoption of stricter business models in forensic science casework compounded with ever-increasing normative and compliance processes not only place additional pressures on a discipline that already appears in difficulty, but also induce more fragmentation of the different forensic science tasks, a tenet many times denounced by the same NAS report and other similar reviews. One may ask whether these issues are not simply the result of an unfit paradigm. If this is the case, the current problems faced by forensic science may indicate future significant changes for the discipline. To facilitate broader discussion this presentation focuses on trace evidence, an area that is seminal to forensic science both for epistemological and historical reasons. There is, however, little doubt that this area is currently under siege worldwide. Current and future challenges faced by trace evidence are discussed along with some possible answers. The current situation ultimately presents some significant opportunities to re-invent not only trace evidence but also forensic science. Ultimately, a distinctive, more robust and more reliable science may emerge through rethinking the forensics paradigm built on specialisms, revisiting fundamental forensic science principles and adapting them to the twenty-first century.