Summary Post

The use of biotechnology in the last decade has taken great strides in serving the needs of the justice system. The first tools available to the law enforcement community such as eye witnesses have become fallible and obsolete in the age of technological driven forensics. In the past a person could be convicted by impartial evidence and serve unneeded time in the penal system. Today this can almost be avoided and the entire process streamlined with the use of the following technologies.

The following is a possible approach using these technologies on the war on crime. A body is found in the woods of a quiet community. This body is not alone in that during the last six months; five other bodies have been discovered dumped in the woods in relatively the same manner. The detectives assigned show up on the scene and with the help of forensic entomologists are able to determine the relative time of death of the victims by use of insect linear regression. The body is then taken to the coroner’s office to determine cause of death and have any viable evidence collected including toxicological screening. This will allow the investigators to see if any foreign substances were used in the crime. The face of the person has been eaten off by animals and needs to be reconstructed to allow a visual comparison. The body is found to have foreign skin cells under its fingernails and they can be amplified and analyzed by PCR. The information of the victim and the possible assailant are then inputted into CODIS and IAFIS to be screened for possible identification. The investigating officer will access this data base and view it from a secure laptop with a biometric finger print reader to ensure security. The officer gets lucky and gets a match in CODIS. The CODIS system having identified the victim as a recently dishonorably discharged Navy Chief convicted of adultery and his possible assailant, a prior felon with multiple assault and battery charges. The body can then be released to the family for burial and the suspect brought in for questioning and further DNA evidence collected. The suspect is then interrogated and given a polygraph to assist the officers in determining if he is telling the truth. The polygraph is not an infallible machine and is only used to give the officers an idea of whether the truth is being told. Once confronted with all the evidence the suspect admits that the chief was sleeping with his wife and he killed him for it. The suspect then states that his wife has been very promiscuous and he has in fact been the killer of the five previously murdered people found in the woods. With all this information a case is made against him and when taken into court the suspect is convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

The story above is not only about the use of technology but of luck as well. Some of these technologies have led to the conviction of innocent people and have also led to the questioning of whether statute of limitation laws should be revised. The technology is also only as good as the user is trained in its application and therefore is as fallible as the user wielding it. Sometimes the technology yields no results leaving the window open for newer innovations to shed light on old cases. In the end, many people will either see these technologies as a way for big brother to watch over them while others will see it as a proverbial safety blanket. However, it is our opinion that although the technology is still developing, the benefits to society far outweigh the cost. New innovations may not be perfect, but they are constantly making forensics more accurate. It has led to the exonerating of the wrongly convicted and the conviction of those who would have previously gone free. As the technology continues to mature it will maximize the good aspects and minimize the bad. Let’s hope one day that it will be able to provide the greatest possible protection. A justice system that is blind to opinion, hearsay and stereotypes. Let’s bring justice to the people!!!

By: Christopher Baker, Kinsley Jin and Stephen Quach

Integrated Automatic Fingerprint Identification System

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/investigation/afis/articles/100353/

Sherman, Mark. "FBI checking database to make sure it is matching fugitives." Associated Press http://www.policeone.com.


As crime investigation technology continues to improve, a growing trend is the integration of vast databases of biometric and other identification information, to aid in the fast identification of suspects. The largest database of biometric information is the FBI’s Integrated Automatic Fingerprint Identification System, or IAFIS.

IAFIS is a database of biometric information on 47 million individuals. The information is all voluntarily submitted to the FBI from local, state, and federal law enforcement.

The database is used for many purposes. Law enforcement officials can use it to search for matches for fingerprints or other information found at a crime scene, in order to identify possible criminals. It also allows law enforcement officials to identify someone who has already been arrested, to see if they have had a prior history of crimes or if they are already wanted for crimes. The database is also used for civil reasons. Employers can submit queries to the database in order to do background searches for prospective employees, making sure they are honest in their applications and will be productive employees.

The database represented a vast improvement over previous methods of fingerprint identification. Prior to its implementation, fingerprint identification was a slow, painstaking process involving the physical creation and transportation of fingerprint cards. The digitalization of these allowed checks to be made in mere hours instead of days.

The article discusses a high profile case in which the system failed to identify the fingerprints of a wanted fugitive, who later went on to murder three women. However, I feel that the system overall remains incredibly accurate for a system incorporating tens of millions of individuals. It is still a step up from what was previously used.

Although the database vastly improves the efficiency of checking and aids in the investigation of crimes, there is still great controversy over it. One of the greatest debates is over who should be included in such a database. As of now the database includes individuals who are added to it by law enforcements. This means that all of the people in the database have been arrested and/or possible convicted of a crime. However, this system limits the database to those who have had prior criminal history. People who are first time offenders cannot be identified in the database. Some argue that the database should be expanded to include more people, possibly everyone. While this would lead to more accuracy and likelihood of identification, it would also require completely innocent people to be put into the database. Therefore they would have a greater likelihood of being identified even if they were innocent, and would have to explain what their fingerprints were doing at a crime scene.

The article also mentions how fingerprints found on a shopping bag near the train bombings in Madrid were mistakenly believed to be from a Portland lawyer. This illustrates the risk of expanding the database to a greater part of the population.

However, I feel that the expansion of the database to include a greater part of the general population would be beneficial. While innocent people might be called in for questioning or investigating because their fingerprints were identified from the database, I believe that the added ability to identify first time offenders would be greatly beneficial. After all, everyone is a first time offender once, and the requirement that someone has to have committed a crime before they can be identified using the database greatly hampers the identification of a suspect via fingerprinting.

Forensics and Justice

From today's Seattle Times, the story of a man (perhaps) wrongly convicted of murder because a forensic "expert" deliberately lied to help the prosecution.

Former Baltimore police Sgt. James A. Kulbicki stared silently from the defense table as the prosecutor held up his off-duty. 38-caliber revolver and assured jurors that science proved the gun had been used to kill Kulbicki's mistress...

Prosecutors had linked the weapon to Kulbicki through forensic science. Maryland's top firearms expert said that the gun had been cleaned and that its bullets were consistent in size with the one that killed the victim. The state expert could not match the markings on the bullets to Kulbicki's gun. But an FBI expert took the stand to say that a science that matches bullets by their lead content had linked the fatal bullet to Kulbicki.

The jurors were convinced, and in 1995 Kulbicki was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of his 22-year-old girlfriend. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole...

Then the scientific evidence unraveled.

Earlier this year, the state expert committed suicide, leaving a trail of false credentials, inaccurate testimony and lab notes that conflicted with what he had told jurors. Two years before, the FBI crime lab had discarded the bullet-matching science that it had used to link Kulbicki to the crime.

The technology used to convict Mr. Kulbicki turned out to have been over-hyped, as it seems forensic technologies touted by over-eager law enforcement and government entities often are.

For more than three decades, bureau experts had testified that they could tie bullets or bullet fragments from crime scenes to suspects by comparing the lead content to bullets in an ammunition box or in a gun recovered from a suspect.

In 2005, the FBI abruptly stopped using the technique after studies — including one by the National Academy of Sciences — found that FBI witnesses had inappropriately suggested to jurors that they could match bullets to specific boxes or guns.

Perhaps a cautionary tale as we discuss exciting developments in forensic science?

CSI good for you, bad for you

The upside of the proliferation of detective shows like CSI, Cold Case, and others has perhaps been that the average TV viewer might have learned a few tidbits about science. The shows at least attempt to model reality, but they have no reservations about bending it to make a better plot. A little knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge at all, you might say.

An Irish forensic scientist told the BBC the show is unrealistic because it implies that crimes can frequently be solved in the course of just one television episode, when the actual case is that crimes are much more difficult and time-consuming to solve.

The leading scientist said such representations fostered a presumption that "the answers we supply are black and white, but of course there's a grey area".

Gary Sinise and Melina Kanakaredes star in CSI:NY

In reality, "we don't fit it in (in) 47 minutes, and the roles are not all rolled into one", she said.

Many forensic scientists specialised in chemistry, biology, DNA, drugs or pattern evidence, she told delegates.

I think Dr. Willis (the scientist's name) overestimates the problem. I don't think the average television viewer takes everything quite so literally.

Forensic Toxicology

http://press.appliedbiosystems.com/corpcomm/applerapress.nsf/ABIDisplayPress/8B1EAC0EB0BED97888257375001345E5?OpenDocument&type=abi

Petrucci, Anthony. "New Forensic Toxicology Application from Applied Biosystems/MDS SCIEX Improves Accuracy of Screening for Drugs of Abuse." Applied Biosystems Press Release 15 10 2007

As the number of drugs and pharmaceuticals continues to grow, the technology used to identify them must improve as well. The need for fast and accurate analysis of substances in the investigation of crimes fuels much of this need for constantly improving technology. As forensic techniques continue to improve with improving technology, forensic toxicology is must not be left behind.

Forensic toxicology is a field involving the analysis and interpretation of toxins and/or drugs found in specimens. This field has an enormous number of uses: it can determine how much alcohol a drunk driver has had, whether a rape victim was drugged, or whether a murder victim was poisoned. However, the sheer number of possible substances can make testing difficult and time consuming.

Applied Biosystems and Sciex’s recently introduced the Cliquid™ Drug Screen and Quant Software for Routine Forensic Toxicology application, a new method of toxicological analysis. It utilizes chromatography-mass spectrometry to analyze the components of a substance instead of older methods, like UV-based liquid chromatography or gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The new process promises to reduce the time it takes to analyze a substance, improve accuracy, and introduce a higher library of substances to test for. The application contains 1,200 substances in its library and is claimed to be able to screen for hundreds of possible drugs in less than 20 minutes. As drugs and chemicals are constantly being created, improved, and derived from each other, a constantly improving library of what is tested must also constantly expand.

The testing itself also promises to be much more improved than previous methods. It requires less preparation, a smaller sample, and is much more sensitive than older methods. Consequently, it is much more cost effective and able to identify chemicals at lower concentrations in smaller samples than before. Using it, evidence can be found that would have gone unnoticed in earlier times. It is also automated, testing for substances automatically and identifying them using simple flow techniques.

What I find most interesting about the article is that it demonstrates the direction new technology is moving in. The process is primarily automated, automatically using chromatography-mass spectrometry to analyze the sample and automatically identifying the substances from a database of thousands of chemicals. This mirrors the increasing number of technologies that are becoming automated: automated DNA sequencing, drug dosing calculations, and even some online illness diagnostic tools. It also demonstrates the increasingly growing role of the computer in biotechnology. The power of the microprocessor gives scientists and forensic toxicologists capabilities and tools that would be unheard of in past times. Here’s hoping to the continued improvement of technology and thus crime investigation.

Fingerprint readers

"GUMMI BEARS TRICK A FINGERPRINT SCANNER"
By: Brandt, Andrew, PC World, 07378939, Aug2004, Vol. 22, Issue 8

(link not available)

In a revamped version of the age-old technology of fingerprinting, computer companies are using fingerprint scans as a form of security. No need to remember long complicated alpha-numeric passwords. Just press your finger against the little scanner which attaches to your laptop or PC. Personalized safety that is quick is a painless. Sound ideal?

In an article in PC world August 2004, Andrew Brandt (author) decides to put two of these “full-proof ” devices to the test. They are 1) DigitalPersona’s U.are.U 400, which uses optical technology to take a picture of a fingertip when you press down on its sensor pad. 2) Targus’s Defcon Autheticator which use capacitive sensors to read electrical currents across its surface. Brondt uses a number of different methods to try and trick the sensors. First he attempts to lift his own fingerprint from a CD, scanned the prints and then used a high-resolution photo printer. The U.are.U. 4000 was not fooled. Following that, Brandt created molds of six of his fingertips using ceramic clay; hardening them in a kiln. He goes on to use various soft household materials to create phony fingertips. Liquid latex fails, polymer casting material(too hard), Play-Doh(doesn't keep its shape), gelatin (melts when it touches the sensor). Finally rehardened gummi bears is discovered to have just the right consistency. Defcon Authenticator clearly recognizes the fraud but the gummi fingertip passes the U.are.U 4000 test.
Not every fingerprint worked but the thumbprint worked again and again. Not only that, that author was able to enroll one of the gummi print as a user and then used his own thumb to log on.

The procedure used here to make a replica fingerprint may not be realisitc but it shows that the optical scanner is definitely not perfect. Real tresspassers surely will have better counter technology. Maybe the best way to keep your precious data secure is to use multiple layers of security.

Forensic Entomology

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles.asp?pid=112

Tonberlin, Jeffrey, John Wallace, and Jason Byrd. "Forensic Entomology: Myths Busted!." Forensic magazine October/November 2006:

With the advent of new forensics technology such as biometric detection and improved DNA testing, “classic” forensics such as ballistics, fingerprinting, and entomology have taken a backseat. While the accuracy and reliability of such methods have recently been called into question, I believe that they still have a role to play even in modern times.

Forensic entomology is aptly named. Basically, it is the use of entomology (the study of bugs) in forensics. Forensic entomologists use knowledge of the life cycles and behaviors of insects to aid in the investigation of a crime. For example, if an entomologist finds a larva on a deceased body that he or she knows takes two days to develop, that knowledge can be used to help pinpoint the time of death. If an insect that likes dry places is found on a body found in a swamp, it might indicate that the body had been moved some time after death.

While forensic entomology is often considered to be inaccurate and not a true forensic science, I feel that it definitely has uses. Entomologists have studied for decades the life cycles of insects, and as a result can relatively accurately place the time of death. The article specifically mentions that entomologists can give the shortest amount of time that a deceased has been dead, since they can compare the growth of insects to the growth of control insects under perfect conditions. While information like this isn’t going to solve a mystery by itself, it’s a piece of the greater puzzle that forensics tries to piece together.

One of the reasons I find forensic entomology fascinating is how different it is from other forms of forensics. Rather than computers, testing labs, and machinery that dominate other areas of forensics, we have an entirely different but still complex machine: a living organism. One that can tell us where a body has been, give clues about what happened, and sometimes even hint at poisons or drugs. All information important to forensics, but gained a different way. Entomology is the alternative medicine, if you will, of forensics. Even in an age of DNA identification, retinal scanning, and computer reconstruction, there is still always the use of older, simpler techniques.

The article is interesting since it is written in a “Mythbusters” format, debugging (if you will forgive the pun) some common misconceptions about forensic entomology. I find it interesting that even this old (there have been anecdotes of use of entomology dating back to the 1800s and probably prior), decidedly not flashy technology is not immune to the “CSI” effect.

With the development of new forensics technology and revelations about possible inaccuracies with old methodologies, I fear that old methods such as ballistics, entomology, polygraphs, and the like will go the way of the dinosaur. While older methods may be less accurate than today’s modern techniques, they still play a key role in the investigation of crimes.