SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE - NEW LEADS
Alastair M. Ross
Director
National Institute of Forensic Science
INTRODUCTION
In a paper entitled ‘Scientific Evidence - New Leads’, one would expect to learn about
scientific break throughs and the latest technological developments. In this paper I intend
to take poetic licence with the title. While there will be some discussion on scientific
development, the paper will also raise issues relating to the quality of scientific evidence
and the presentation of scientific evidence to the courts. In this, I will unashamedly be
touching on the role of the National Institute of Forensic Science in these areas.
BACKGROUND
Whenever the topic of science is raised, the discussion centres around technological
advances. For science to progress, this is natural and should be encouraged. However,
progress must not be permitted to run too far ahead of proper validation and community
acceptance. This is true for all science and particularly for forensic science. It is in
forensic science where ultimately, the court will rule on its acceptance and the public, in
the form of the jury, will make a judgement as to its relevance and significance in a given
case. To a large degree then, the success of new leads in scientific evidence is not
determined in the laboratory, but in the courtroom. It is therefore incumbent on forensic
science to build into new technology the quality and validation required for acceptance
and to properly inform the legal and general community of its strengths and limitations.
DISCUSSION
The discussion will centre around three main points:
Building in Quality;
Taking it to the Streets;
Scientific Advances.
Building in Quality
Like it or not, industry regulation is upon us. The forensic science community, initially
through the Senior Managers of Australian and New Zealand Forensic Laboratories
(SMANZFL) and subsequently through SMANZFL and NIFS has, on its own initiative,
developed a national laboratory accreditation program. The program is jointly managed
by the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) and the American Association
of Crime Laboratory Director’s Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB). It is a
comprehensive peer review of all aspects of forensic laboratory practice conducted by
assessors, national and international, who are external to the laboratory. The assessment is
underpinned by mandatory, regular external proficiency testing, the results of which are
reviewed by an international panel. Sanctions are applied to accredited laboratories who,
through assessment and proficiency tests, are found not to be meeting the comprehensive
accreditation criteria. Three Australian laboratories are already accredited and the aim of
SMANZFL is for all Australian laboratories to be accredited by the year 2000.
A ‘new lead’ in the accreditation program is the inclusion of crime scene investigation.
This discipline is not included in any other accreditation program, which is surprising
given its fundamental importance in any forensic analysis.
NIFS has sponsored a team of crime scene examiners representing all jurisdictions to
develop discipline specific accreditation criteria and proficiency testing protocols. The
group has been most innovative in its approach.
Every examiner must undergo an internal proficiency test each year. This comprises
assessment by a supervisor at an actual scene through the use of a set of national standards
developed into a check list. The checklist is used to determine whether or not the
examiner has adequately processed the scene. Any deficiencies result in counselling and
retraining.
In addition, each facility must undertake an external proficiency test each year. The
external test is being developed using interactive CD Rom technology. This enables the
person being assessed to ‘walk through’ a crime scene on a computer screen. The
program gives the ability to zoom in on specific objects, take photographs and collect the
object. Note books on the screen enable the assessee to record their observations, why
they do or do not collect certain items and their probable significance to the case and how
the objects are packaged and labelled.
For the assessor, there is a complete audit trail including, for example, the total time spent
on the test, the time spent in each section of the scene, items ‘zoomed’ and not collected
and the notes made by the assessee. The test results will be considered by an external
panel against model answers developed by the test designers. Sanctions will be applied to
accredited facilities not meeting the criteria.
The pilot program was demonstrated with sensational success at a recent meeting of the
American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting in Nashville. The concept has exciting
implications for other disciplines and in the area of training. It will be an important
component of building in quality.
Taking it to the Streets
The general public has an extremely keen interest in forensic science, beginning with
students at secondary and even primary school level. Too often unrealistic expectations of
forensic science are created through ill researched but popular film and television. It is the
general public who constitute our juries and therefore, it is vital that they have access to a
balanced view of the strengths and limitations of forensic science.
2
Similarly for legal counsel to effectively lead scientific evidence or test the evidence
through cross examination, they must have a knowledge of at least the basic principles of
the science being presented. Furthermore, the Judge or Magistrate must also have that
knowledge to be able to assess the evidence. It is not appropriate, as is often the case, for
the lack of scientific knowledge to be seen as a ‘badge of honour’ by members of the legal
profession involved in trials where scientific evidence is presented.
There are a number of ‘new leads’ being developed by NIFS to address the issue of
information/knowledge transfer. Three of these are:
multi-level information packages;
national jury survey;
forensic hypotheticals.
Multi-level information packages
In conjunction with the Victoria Forensic Science Centre, NIFS is developing a prototype
of these packages with the topic being DNA profiling. The packages will be video/paper
based and provide information at three different levels. The first level will provide basic
principles type information for juries. The second level will be more complex and is
aimed at legal counsel and the judiciary and the third and most complex level will provide
information/training for scientists. One of the aims of the packages is to provide
information which is based on national standards and therefore, endorsed by all
States/Territories.
Depending on the acceptance of this prototype which is due for completion in September
of this year, packages involving other disciplines will be produced.
National Jury Survey
As a direct result of the National Forensic Summit held in Canberra in May last year,
NIFS, the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA) and the Australian
Institute of Criminology(AIC) are combining forces to conduct a survey of past jurors.
Two questions raised in a paper presented at the Summit by, Dr. James Robertson
(General Manager, Forensic Science Services, Australian Federal Police) were:
are the perceptions that jurors do not understand scientific or technical evidence
valid?
are jurors given sufficient access to information such as scientific reports?
These questions have lead to the key aims of the survey which are:
to determine the level of understanding of scientific/technical evidence by jurors
and how this may be improved;
to identify the needs of jurors regarding access to scientific/technical information
during the trial process;
to identify any improvements that can be made in the way in which
scientific/technical evidence is presented to the courts.
The aims of the survey sit well with current Federal Government policy viz:
3
‘to develop an Australia-wide jury education program in consultation with and cooperation of State and Territory Governments. This program may well involve the
development of ‘jury kits’ comprising an explanatory video and supplementary
written materials for jurors’.
Representatives of the legal and scientific communities will be involved in identifying
appropriate cases and, therefore, juries to survey and in the development of the survey
instrument.
Forensic Hypotheticals
The ‘Geoffrey Robertson’s Hypotheticals’ approach is finding success in both entertaining
and informing the general public of the realisms of forensic science.
By invitation from the South Australian Branch of the Australian and New Zealand
Forensic Science Society (ANZFSS), I recently led a panel of scientists representing
different forensic disciplines and prosecution and defence counsel through a crime
scenario. Each panel member explained their role and function in the case and answered
hypothetical questions as the case developed. The venue catered for 300 members of the
public and was sold out.
NIFS is also staging a forensic hypothetical as part of the Australian Science Festival in
Canberra on 23 April this year. Early indications are that the 2,500 seat venue will be sold
out. This is an excellent forum for demonstrating to the public what the strengths and
limitations of forensic science are. It caters for both the strong public interest in forensic
science and the need for them to be properly informed. Perhaps in a more sophisticated
form, it would also have application for law students and the legal profession in general.
The discipline of forensic science has tended toward insularity for too long and there is a
genuine need for open, informed discussion and education. It is vital that the legal
profession accepts its role in the process.
Scientific Advances
Each three years, Interpol convenes a meeting on the forensic sciences at which scientific
advances in the various disciplines over the three year period are identified and discussed.
The most recent meeting was held in Lyon in November 1995 and this paper now
summarises the most important advances in technology and forensic science research and
development which were reported at that meeting.
DNA profiling is still generating a great deal of interest. Internationally, a significant
number of laboratories are dispensing with conventional serology methods. The trend is
definitely towards polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology with multiplexing of short
tandem repeat (STR) systems. This enables profiling at up to six loci with a single sample.
The discriminating power is extremely high.
There is also an international trend towards the establishment of offender DNA databases.
These databases maintain DNA profiles from offenders which will be checked against
4
future crime scene stains. Profiles of biological stains from cases where there is no known
offender are also maintained on the database to check for serial offences.
NIFS has recently established a working party to investigate the implementation issues of
an offender DNA database in Australia.
The relatively new technique of capillary electrophoresis (CE) is proving to be valuable in
the area of drug profiling. Drug profiling is finding increasing use in the sourcing of drug
seizures. The ability of CE to analyse small samples is also proving useful for the
detection and identification of explosives.
Computer aided identification was seen as a major advance in increasing the objectivity of
handwriting examination, particularly in the area of signature analysis. A significant
contribution to this area is being made by Mr. Bryan Found and his colleagues working at
La Trobe University in Melbourne. Their work is being supported by research grants from
NIFS.
The use of new lighting and imaging techniques is assisting fingerprint detection and
identification. Electrostatic lifting and chemical enhancement is improving the level of
shoe print detection. Digital technology is being used to transfer fingerprint and shoe print
images from the crime scene to the laboratory.
There is still international debate over the set number of points for fingerprint detection.
The University of Laussane is conducting research related to the frequency of occurrence
of the different fingerprint characteristics.
Finally, novel methods of manufacture of drugs such as amphetamines and explosives
being circulated on the Internet is necessitating new methods of analysis.
SUMMARY
Technological advance is an important aspect of ensuring that the best possible scientific
evidence is available to the courts. The underpinning of that development has to be
appropriate validation and quality management and mechanisms for informing the
community of its function, strengths and weaknesses.
There are many ‘new leads’ which should be and some which are taking place to
strengthen this process. A number of those leads have been identified and discussed in
this paper. The success of many of them is reliant on a partnership approach between the
key players, the scientific and legal communities.
The scientific community is ready......
5