Evidence Based Forensic Investigation

DNA analysts have been profiling DNA since 1985. Then in 1998, the Combined DNA Index System became fully operational (“FAQs” 2010). CODIS’s three levels are the national level, the state level, and the local level. As September 2015, there is 14,740,249 DNA profiles in CODIS (“CODIS”, n.d.). Since everybody has different DNA, except identical twins, DNA analysts have been able to assists with investigator to determine between who is guilty and who is innocent. With some of their findings, they are able to exonerate individuals, who have been wrongfully convicted. Even though television may make DNA analysts’ life look simple on the screen, it is not. There is need for interest and education. Lastly, the actual job that entails for the DNA

Nearly anyone you ask would be familiar with the television show CSI. The crime lab is colorful and high-tech with all of the fun toys and machines that analysts use to test the ever abundant amount of forensic evidence from every crime scene. It makes for an exciting drama that you cannot help but get immersed in—it also gives us a false illusion, however, creating what has been dubbed as the “CSI effect” (Baskin, 2011). This effect describes the idea that crime shows such as CSI generate unreal expectations, making viewers believe that forensic evidence should be existent in all criminal trials, therefore affecting their overall perspective on a case (Baskin, 2011). But in reality, forensic labs are not that glamorous. In fact, the

Beginning in the mid-1980s, the development of DNA analysis technology has revolutionised the field of forensic science within the criminal justice system. As the refinement of procedures and technology continues, even minute samples of biological material (including blood, saliva, semen and skin cells) are able to be analysed and used to link or acquit perpetrators of crimes. (Whitney, R n.d.)

Due to the uniqueness of DNA it has become a powerful tool in criminal investigations

DNA forensics can also narrow down suspect pools, exonerate innocent suspects, and link crimes together if the same DNA is found at both scenes. However, without existing suspects, a DNA profile cannot direct an investigation because current knowledge of genotype-phenotype relation is too vague for DNA phenotyping. For example, a profile from a first time offender that has no match in any database may give the information that the criminal is a left handed male of medium stature with red hair and freckles. It would be impossible to interview every man who fits that description. However, with available suspects, DNA forensics has many advantages over other forms of evidence. One is the longevity of DNA. Although it will deteriorate if exposed to sunlight, it can remain intact for centuries under proper conditions (Sachs, 2004). Because DNA is so durable, investigators can reopen old cases to reexamine evidence.

Tracing back to April of 1995 to the present, the development and advancements of DNA databases have significantly progressed, allowing it to have the capabilities it has today. In 1995, the first government national DNA database was established in the United Kingdom for the purpose of collecting genetic information from criminals. This idea has since progressed to encompass the genetic information of all citizens. This information will be derived from human material. There is controversy over the idea of expanding from criminals to all citizens due to a threat to human privacy. Although this controversy was rooted in England, over 60 other countries have come to adopt the database system, thus causing the controversy to expand to all of these other countries ("Is It Ethical To Have A National DNA Database?"). Some of these countries include New Zealand, France, and even the United States. In the United States, the government started a project known as CODIS (Combined DNA Index System) in 1994. CODIS is the FBI 's program that allows forensic DNA laboratories to create and search databases of DNA profiles. The federal DNA Identification Act of 1994 authorized the FBI to create CODIS and set national standards for forensic DNA testing. Since 1994, the debate has expanded from having only the genetic information of criminals to having every citizen 's information in one file.

Previously used only in research labs, DNA fingerprinting has become more common to the public. Although mostly used for paternity testing, DNA profiling is reliable enough as evidence that prosecutors are relying on it more and more to help convict suspects in criminal cases. One specific example occurred in Goldsboro, North Carolina. A man known as the “Night Stalker” had committed offenses of rape in 1990 to three elderly women. Each incident resulted in an attempt to murder the victim; however, only two lost their lives along with one husband. One woman was fortunately saved by the unusually early arrival of her daughter. The suspect planned to burn the residence to hide the crime, but panicked and ran, leaving behind substantial evidence. A matching pap smear was taken from each victim to cross reference DNA samples, but no suspect was known. This is where the NDIS came into effect, adding a profile to North Carolina’s database. After 10 years of

Media and television have created what is known as the CSI effect for jurors and prosecutors when trying to establish a guilty verdict by the lawyer or trying to determine whether innocent or guilty by the jury. People who watch these television shows not only think that they are somewhat educated on what to expect when being selected for a juror in a trial, but they also have a pre conception of what they feel they need to see in order to provide a guilty verdict. Most of the jurors do not have a forensic science background, but by basing their concepts and ideas around a television show, of the type of evidence needed is mostly costly evidence like DNA, gunshot residue, ballistics test, and other rather expensive evidence that sometimes do

Psychopath Dennis Rader, alias the BTK Killer, killed a total of 10 people, including 2 children, over a fifteen year period ranging from 1974 to 1991. Rader was apprehended and arrested in 2005 because of newer forensic technology available to analyze DNA and computer forensics. Ultimately, it was Rader’s own daughter who turned police informant, and give them a DNA sample from her cheek saliva (Hansen, 2006). Young & Ortmeier (2011) describe how DNA Identification Act of 1994 led to the development of CODIS, which been used for varied reasons such as identifying violent offenders, victims and unidentified remains. Despite Rader’s cleverness and precautions, he carelessly left behind trace biological evidence from underneath his fingernails that was lifted forensically from a letter BTK sent to the

The world used to be a place filled with questions and answers that could not be found. As the years have gone by, evidence at a crime scene has become progressively more understood and the world is now a place filled with questions that there are answers to. To get where detectives are today, it took years of experiments, building and knowledge of technology that expanded the mind to places that are hard to believe. Technology is the basis of what it takes to find the vastest amount of information that evidence can provide. It can hold, prove and find information that in past years, could not. Due to the advances in technology, specifically through DNA, fingerprinting and lighting systems, crime scene evidence collection has grown tremendously.

Each person’s genome- apart from identical twins’ or other multiple births’- is distinct because of variations in allele frequencies which cause chromosomes to have certain genotypes. This indicates that when the DNA found at a crime location matches a person’s, the individual is the culprit of the crime; however, finalizing a case is not this elementary. The evidence collected from a scene does not show the person’s entire genome. While it can certainly point to suspects whose DNA matches the samples collected from the scene, it does not secure a definite criminal. Analyzing DNA requires understanding of a few complex fundamentals, but probability paired with statistical reasoning provides for a more accurate approach in assessing DNA matches.

Allowing the annual report of the National DNA Database Strategy Board as of 2012-2013, NDNAD helps the law enforcement in giving worthful information that will lead in determining the suspect and solve crime cases. However, sometimes the crime doesn’t solve and more evidence needs to be collecting to secure a conviction but in dealing with NDNAD it provides the police of its needed information for DNA matches.

When investigators are trying to capture evidence off the internet, they can print it out or use a screen capture and they will have to collect the metadata. Even though the investigator can use a screen capture, will that satisfy the court? The investigator should use forensic software to collect the metadata and after collecting it, the evidence should be protected (Sullivan, 2015). The person can both encrypt it and perhaps put it under lock and key until the trial to show chain of evidence (Sullivan, 2015).

Every State in the Nation has a DNA database that allows for the collection of DNA profiles from offenders convicted of particular crimes. CODIS software enables State, local, and national law enforcement crime laboratories to compare DNA profiles electronically, thereby linking serial crimes to each other and identifying suspects by matching DNA profiles from crime scenes with profiles from convicted offenders. The success of CODIS is demonstrated by the thousands of matches that have linked serial cases to each other and cases that have been solved by matching crime scene evidence to known convicted offenders.

Television shows about investigations have been popular for years but few viewers understand the intricacies of an actual crime scene investigation. If an autopsy is required masked forensic pathologists examine the body. The body not the murder weapon is the most important piece of evidence. Exact time of death cannot be known without a witness. A forensic pathologist however, can estimate the time of death with certainty. Upon death a human body begins to decompose. It goes through several stages of decomposition. Knowing the time of death combined with other evidence, may shed light on the cause of death. Often the pathologist has crime scene information from detectives at the time of the autopsy. Legally, there are five causes of death: