8127/frame/fm

 
Preface
 
Thinking is allowed
 
Unknown
Why do we need another book about criminalistics? Many books have been
written on this subject over the last century, and several are currently in print
(Kirk, 1953, 1974; Saferstein, 1981, 1988, 1993, 1998; DeForest, 1983; Fisher,
2000). The majority of writings addressing subjects relating to science and
crime have been aimed at the police investigator or the lay public. This is
perhaps not surprising. The investigator or detective plays the unquestionably
critical role of identifying and collecting evidence from the crime scene. These
actions profoundly influence any subsequent analysis and interpretation, so
it is imperative that those duties are performed with knowledge and expertise.
Although investigators are usually not trained scientists, they must under-
stand enough about the analytical procedures to avoid confounding them by
their actions at the scene. Thus many books have been written with this goal
in mind.
The lay public, including crime and mystery writers, has always had a
morbid obsession with criminals, crime, and its detection. Many of the
fascinating tales recounting both the commission of crimes and their solution
have been recorded in various volumes directed toward the interested lay-
person. As technology has advanced and more-sophisticated methods have
been applied to the analysis of physical evidence, the interested public wants
to know not only about the criminal and the crime, but also about the various
analytical techniques and what they can contribute to the solution of the
crime (Ragle, 1995; Houde, 1999).
This book is not aimed at the investigator, attorney, crime or mystery
writer, career switcher, or beginning student. Although all of these groups
may find the information presented here both useful and interesting, they
may have to employ other resources to fill in gaps in scientific or forensic
knowledge. Rather, this volume is by and for forensic scientists; it is directed
toward the practicing or soon to be practicing criminalist. It is not introduc-
tory in nature and assumes a strong background and familiarity with the
physical and forensic sciences.
8127/frame/fm Page ix Monday, July 24, 2000 11:17 AM

---

x
Principles and Practice of Criminalistics
Strangely, few volumes have been written for the forensic science profes-
sional, and the majority of those tend to be simply compilations of laboratory
methods and techniques (Kirk,
 
 
1953, 1974; Saferstein, 1981, 1988, 1993;
DeForest et al., 1983). While detailed and standardized procedures are obvi-
ously indispensable to quality laboratory work, without the proper cognitive
framework the laboratory results may be worse than useless. Therefore, we
do not present here yet another overview of forensic science or introduction
to laboratory techniques. Rather, we concentrate on topics that are discussed
in lunchrooms, around watercoolers, and on electronic mail lists by practic-
ing forensic scientists.
We outline here a logical framework for a forensic investigation, an
approach rather than a compendium of methods, a way of thinking rather
than a set of instructions. We most definitely emphasize the role of physical
evidence in providing information about criminal actions. However, as we
will stress throughout the book, physical evidence does not exist in a vacuum
and, to maximize its value, it must be considered in the total context of the
circumstances of the case. The technician who only pushes buttons and
twiddles dials, even on the most-sophisticated instrument, remains just
that — a technician. The criminalist must synthesize and interpret laboratory
results in the greater context of the crime, or risk misinterpreting them.
Thinking is allowed — consider this a framework on which to hang your
thoughts.
We unabashedly build on the ideas of previous icons such as Edmund
Locard and Paul Kirk, both pioneers in thinking about the particular conun-
drums created by the application of scientific techniques to forensic situa-
tions. We also incorporate the ideas from leading thinkers on today’s forensic
landscape — Dave Stoney, Ian Evett, John Buckleton, and John Thornton,
to name a few. We reexamine the ideas of these men and others in light of
both technical and intellectual advances. Although others working in the field
of criminalistics are unquestionably more qualified to organize, summarize,
and comment on the current state of forensic thinking, no one has done so.
Therefore, we have decided to fill the vacuum.
The reputation of forensic science has been significantly tarnished in
recent years. A number of unethical, unprofessional, and immoral acts have
clearly been perpetrated and we condemn them. However, because of the
public impact of forensic investigations and analyses, they often become
fodder for journalists, the most well intentioned of whom has little or no
scientific expertise and likely no forensic background. We cannot allow the
media or political bodies to police our profession, especially in the forum of