8127/frame/fm

 
b.
Documentation
Any kind of review becomes an exercise in diminishing returns if the docu-
mentation is incomplete or unclear. One of our common observations is the
seemingly ubiquitous lack of good scientific practice in the area of documen-
tation. When the details of the test or analysis are not recorded, that infor-
mation is quickly lost to the distant recesses of the analyst’s brain, rarely to
be recovered. If it was not recorded, it was not done, or at best we are left
guessing exactly how it was done. It is not uncommon for information that
would be of great help in answering questions about the interpretation to be
unavailable. This is unfortunate because all it does is weaken our confidence
in any one interpretation. Ambiguity is rarely anyone’s goal in solving a crime.
The documentation that started with the collection and preservation of
evidence in the field must continue through the examination and analysis in
the laboratory. There is nothing worse than receiving a case file for review
in which the total documentation consists of one page listing the case num-
ber, the results, and the dreaded acronym, SOP — Standard Operating Pro-
cedure. By definition, every case is different and each sample is novel — how
can exactly the same procedures have been used in any two cases? Although
it is certainly necessary for the laboratory to maintain SOPs as a starting
place for different analyses, each sample provides its own challenges and
intrigues. We’ve insisted that the analyst gets to think; she can use her edu-
cation, knowledge, and experience to process each sample for maximum
informativness. For the privilege of getting to think, the criminalist is also
required to think, and to record that thought process both for posterity and
review.
As trivial as it sounds, an internal reviewer should check that the case
notes and report are complete and legible so that any other experts can readily
see what was done and when. The analyst must have carefully and clearly
documented not only which items were tested, but what areas on the items
were tested. A bullet hole in the back of the victim’s jacket means something
completely different than a bullet hole in the front, especially if the victim
claims he was shot in the back. An internal reviewer should also examine the
chain of custody from the time the evidence has entered the laboratory.
8127/frame/ch09 Page 235 Friday, July 21, 2000 11:44 AM

---

236
Principles and Practice of Criminalistics
The independent reviewer should request the complete chain of custody,
starting with evidence collection. Frequently, no one else may review it on
behalf of the defendant. We mentioned a couple of examples of chain-of-
custody problems in the previous chapter.
The internal reviewer should also check that each item has a unique
identifier. If not, there may be ambiguity about which item was actually
tested. We know of one case where the suspect and a boyfriend of the victim
were both labeled as “K2” and a second reference sample from the suspect
was later labeled as “K3.” This led to some interesting gyrations throughout
the analysis and interpretation in the attempt to identify which was which,
and ultimately, to a mistake in labeling.