Reading Blog due Monday 1/30 @ midnight

This chapter is about forensic identification. This includes linking physical trace evidence to an individual. This can help with the identification of a perpetrator. It reviews ways of identification, such as DNA and fingerprints, and then gives the pros and cons of each source. It also describes terminology of forensic identification such as trace evidence and a source. The most interesting thing that I learned is in regards to fingerprints. I suppose that due to crime shows on television, I assumed as the book said, a fingerprint is lifted from a crime scene, and matched through a computer database. I did not realize that the database could give a result of various potential matches, and that the human examiner sorts through the potential matches.

To be completely honest, what surprised me the most was that some snowflakes are so similar that they are indistinguishable. I was also surprised that there is not certain knowledge that no to fingerprints are identical. I guess this surprised me because it is something that I have always been told, and no one has ever attempted to go against it.

I also found it really interesting that there are examiners called ridgeologists that compare fingerprints. I have never heard of such a thing, and I really enjoy learning about careers that people have! Associated with this, I chose to look up more information about fingerprint identification.

Through my research, I learned that fingerprint identification is one of the oldest biometric techniques. There are two categories for fingerprint matching. One is called minutae-based, and the other is called correlation based. Minutiae-based finger the minutiae points and maps their placement on the finger. I also learned that the FBI fingerprint database contains roughly 70 million fingerprints! There is a system called fingerprint image enhancement algorithm which improves clarity of ridges of a fingerprint.
http://biometrics.cse.msu.edu/fingerprint.html

I looked at another site, which states that there are a variety of fingerprint pattern types. Some examples of this include the plain arch, the radial loop, and the accidental whorl. With the new technology of the FBI fingerprint database, fingerprint processing can be done in a few hours!
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/fingerprints_biometrics/fingerprint-overview

CSI HANDBOOK
The CSI handbook is obviously about crime scene investigations. It describes what methods and precautions should be followed when investigating a crime scene. The handbook describes ways that law enforcement officers should go about protecting a crime scene. It describes what should be done when initially coming on to the scene. For example, officers have to be observant when they are involved in the scene to ensure they are aware of all factors and people present. The officer also is in charge of keeping minimal people from entering the crime scene and control physical threats. The officer is in charge of creating and maintaining boundaries around the crime scene to protect from any contamination.

Documentation is necessary to ensure all data and information is collected and gathered in one spot. It will ensure that all of the necessary information has been obtained. This is important when it comes to investigating the crime. The officers brief the investigator of the crime scene and give them the documentation collected. Investigators do an initial walk through as well as a final walk through to ensure they have gathered all evidence, and that nothing is left behind. All information gathered at the scene is compiled into a case file so that it can be reviewed later.

The most interesting part about this handbook for me is the steps the officers are required to take. Again, due to media portrayal, I just assumed the police showed up and blocked off the scene so no one could get it. I never considered the officers had to be observant, control physical threats, and guide emergency personnel so that the scene is not contaminated. It was really interesting to learn about all the precautions they are required to take at a crime scene.

One thing that somewhat surprised me was the amount of detail the investigators go into when looking at a scene. They take the information the officers gave them, plus a scene assessment, a walk-though, and a final survey to gather all evidence at the scene. I was really surprised by the dedication that is taken to ensure they have all amounts of evidence possible.

I think there are a variety of aspects of psychology that play a role in the crime scene investigation. One is social psychology. There is a lot of interaction among officers, investigators, witnesses, suspects, etc. Another aspect of psychology (as stated in an earlier post) is being able to read and sensitize oneself to other’s emotions. There are a variety of ways psychology plays a part in the investigation of a crime scene.

This chapter focuses on trace evidence and its uses and possible misuses in identification. Statistics, reliability, and probability all play into jurors’ perception of the relevance of trace evidence. DNA and fingerprints are probably the strongest measures of identification when matched to a person, however, random match probabilities may skew one’s perception of the significance of the findings. Biases and error are can also be issues in the process of identification through forensics. Outside information about the crime may lead examiners to come to findings about the identification that are different from what they otherwise may have determined. In short, it is possibly that trace evidence became contaminated somewhere along the way, or that the ridgeologist was told that the suspect already confessed and thus proclaims the fingerprint to be a match. The process gets even more complicated once jurors get involved and are left having to decipher statistics and other scientific things that may have different meanings in different contexts. With advances in technology forensic identification continues to improve, however it’s unlikely that it will ever be totally perfect.

What I found most interesting was the information about the jury. Everything they hear at trial is subjective to their personal interpretation of it, and many of them lack understanding when it comes to decoding scientific findings and determining their reliability and relevance. The idea that same evidence presented in two different ways to the same people can lead to completely different verdicts, which is somewhat disconcerting.

All of the different levels used to classify the validity of a match is what I found most surprising about this chapter. That most of the different types of identification have their own parent group or organization sort of dictating what categories experts should use to qualify matches in their specific area is something I did not know about. It makes sense that they want to restrict experts giving testimony about matches that aren’t certain and that they want to help legitimize the process of providing scientific evidence, it seems like this could possible lead to future confusion amongst jury members when trying to decide the weight of each point on the scale.

I decided to learn more about ridgeologists because it is a profession that I had never thought about much before reading this chapter. Also known as Latent Print Analysts, ridgeologists look at friction ridge characteristics between the two prints to determine if there is a match. Ridgeology not only focuses on the uses of the basic physical sciences in identification, but also in the use of edgeoscopy and poroscopy. The study has gone under massive changes in the past few decades including the switch to automated fingerprint identification systems. http://www.scafo.org/library/100701.html

The handbook goes through all the steps from the point of arriving at a crime scene through leaving it after doing everything required. It goes through the steps for each stage of the process, such as medical care for victims and/or suspects and assessing the crime scene for possible threats. It then goes through the procedure for securing the scene and setting up boundaries, including physical barriers. The handbook talks about the importance of documenting everything about the scene and performing the initial walk through. In dealing with the evidence, it stresses the importance of trying to preserve it without contamination and first collected evidence that may be compromised without immediate attention. The briefing others upon their arrival on scene is another important part of the process. Finally, the handbook covers the final securing and departure from the scene and later lists the supplies that are essential to have on hand when dealing with crime scenes, along with recommended supplies.

Though it makes sense that investigators need many supplies to do their jobs, I was still a little bit surprised to see the sheer number of things that may come in handy when evaluating a scene and collecting evidence. All of the supplies seem very useful, but could probably become tedious to keep track of and be sure to have in the vehicle at all times.

I thought it was very interesting how the time frame works upon arriving at the scene of a crime. There seems to be a lot that needs to be done very quickly to prevent from things getting contaminated, and you have to be thinking very clearly to work efficiently. There are lots of different factors that can lead to something going wrong.

I think the biggest relation to psychology here is when people at the scene have to be detained or removed, along with establishing boundaries potential points of entrance and exit of the perpetrator. In doing so, an officer can begin to put together an idea of what may have made the perpetrator commit the crime, and the possible series of events that led up to the crime.In interviewing witnesses, victims, or others at the scene of the crime, officers need to keep in mind the psychological states and possible trauma of those at hand.

C&K Chapter 4

This chapter opens up with talking about how it is impossible not to leave some sort of evidence. All the evidence left behind is then used to connect it to a person. This is known as forensic identification. The next thing the chapter talks about is interesting because it explains that back in 1883 used 11 measurements to identify different people in prisons. I find it amazing that they realized fingerprints were unique to everyone and used it to classify people in 1903. There are two things that scientists look for physically, the class and individual characteristics. The class characteristics relate to a group of people while the individual characteristics come from an individual. Next the chapter talked about how forensic evidence is use in the court room. The courts believed in the forensic evidence for a long time, but now some consider the information to not be as reliable as they thought. Scientists use both statistical and non-statistical approaches with the evidence. In the book they use the example of a red hair found at the crime scene and that is related to the statistical approach, while the other approaches are more statements that could be right. DNA is one of the strongest forms of evidence today because it is unique to the individual person. DNA is used in court cases to show whether or not the suspect is guilty. Fingerprinting has a tendency to be off because of the person looking at the fingerprint. In the case of jurors statistics can be confusing to them because of the context they are used. Percentages can be confusing because you don’t know how many people were taken into consideration.

The first quote that I read I found interesting because of the way it is written. It is interesting because of the fact that it is true, every little thing about you can be left behind at a scene. The quote I am talking about is on page 76 and 77. What surprised me the most was about fingerprinting and how it isn’t as reliable as I thought. I thought that it was just as reliable as DNA. I would like to learn more about the statistical approaches used with evidence. I have always found that fascinating and would love to learn as much as I can about it.

http://www.newkirkcenter.uci.edu/Thompson/Costanzo-03.pdf
This went into detail about match plus statistics. I liked that his article talked about the juries perspective of it because it was slightly covered in the text book, and this was another opinion, but with the same idea. The idea that jurors can get confused by these statistics seems to be a shared thought by the authors.

http://libguides.trine.edu/content.php?pid=176450&sid=1485779
This website is pretty cool. It has links to all different websites that have statistics about crime. It is interesting to see the statistics of crime.

CSI HANDBOOK

The CSI handbook mostly concentrated on what to do when at a crime scene. It talked about the importance of seeing everything at the crime scene and not leaving anything out. Also how you need to get into the scene, but have little to no contamination. This handbook talked about how all crime scenes are different so that the approach you take is going to change depending on the situation. Once they were on the scene the officer was meant to take in his surroundings and to notice if anything seemed out of place or if certain people were lurching around. After that his or her main duty is to insure the safety of themselves and people around them. When they think that everything is under control they need to take care of the victims if there are any. The officer may need to call for medical help. When the help arrives the officer needs to instruct them what they can and can’t touch, what to keep that is one the victim, and to document where the victim is. Also try to send an officer with the victim so that they can get information from them about the perpetrator. Next the officer needs to control the people at the scene by getting names and information from them while making sure no one contaminates anything. After that he or she needs to set up boundaries so that they can block off everything that may have to do with the scene. This would include anywhere the perpetrator may have gone. Once they have that done they can give all the information they have to the investigator.

Now the investigator takes over and is in charge of getting as much information about the crime as possible. Basically the investigator goes through everything the initially officer did. He or she looks at the scene, the evidence, and takes pictures of everything. Once that is all done the investigator determines who he or she needs to help them with this case, like a sketch artist. All of the evidence has to be organized so that it isn’t cross-contaminated. With the evidence the team needs to put when, where, and what it is so that everyone knows what they have. When everything is organized they can debrief and talk about everything so that everyone is on the same page. Finally, everything gets documented.

I think that the most important part of this handbook is to understand how important it is to keep the crime scene under control. It seems that the contamination part plays a very big role. What surprised me the most was the fact that there was a lot of backtracking. For example when the scene is handed over to the investigator he/she goes back through everything, and when the team gets together they go back through everything again. I think behavioral psychology plays a role in this because of the fact that the officer has to take into consideration everyone around the scene, and there behaviors can tell a lot about what they do and don’t know. Also when they are interviewing people you need to be able to tell if what they are saying is true or not because they may be in shock and not really understanding what they are saying.

This chapter discussed Forensic Identification, which includes DNA, fingerprints, and trace evidence. It is nearly impossible to commit a crime without leaving some kind of evidence. There are many ways to measure forensic evidence. One of the first techniques was created by Alphonse Bertillon and included taking a series of measurements to link evidence to a specific person. Although this technique is outdated, he was the pioneer of biometrics, which uses a person’s fingerprints, iris, retina, and face to make identification. Two important terms used to measure the correctness of identification are reliability and validity. Reliability is the ability of a measure to be consistent and repeated my multiple experts in hopes that they come up with the same results. Validity is when a measure is actually measuring what it is meant to measure. These two terms are important because forensic identification is not exact and is often times incorrect. The most reliable form of evidence is DNA although it does come with RMP’s, which measure the change of random matching. Fingerprints are less reliable because every fingerprint analyst can interpret them in different ways and have before.

The part of the chapter that discussed fingerprints was probably the most interesting. I liked learning how the categorize fingerprints based on the different patterns present in the skin. I was very surprised to find out that fingerprints are not as accurate as they may seem. The research that has been done on fingerprint accuracy was particularly interesting. The probably that a fingerprint analyst will agree with the results they came up with years before is scary. I definitely believe that some discretion should be used when taking into consideration the results of fingerprint analysis. Jurors in particular should be informed.

I found more information on the fingerprinting technology with my outside source I found on the Internet. Fingerprint analysis is becoming more and more computerized. Public and private sectors are turning to digitized fingerprint images when trying to make a match. This article pinpoints some of the advantages and disadvantages of this change. The biggest disadvantage comes when transferring a real fingerprint into a digital image because some alterations might be made to the quality and characteristics of the fingerprint.

http://www.ajs.org/ajs/publications/Judicature_PDFs/896/Cherry_896.pdf

The CSI handbook was interesting to read. It basically gives an overview of the procedures that need to be followed from the moment a police officer arrives on scene to the end. There are some very important aspects that I think really need to be followed for the crime scene to help in finding the perpetrator. First off the evidence cannot be contaminated. This can be taken care of my properly taping off the crime scene. The handbook also stressed the importance of safety for the officers, victims, family, and neighbors. Most of the safety procedures take place at the beginning of the process before the police even enter the crime scene. I never knew there was a CSI handbook so I found it enjoyable to read although it was slightly repetitive. I had always imagined there specific precautions that must be followed by police but I never knew what they were.

Chapter four is titled: “The Psychology of Forensic Identification: DNA, Fingerprints, and Physical trace Evidence”. It explains how there is virtually no way to commit a crime and not leave some sort of evidence behind. There are two main characteristics of evidence: Class characteristics and individual characteristics. Class characteristics are common within a category of objects and include features such as tread from a particular brand of tires, whereas individual characteristics make up those features that are unique to an object or individual. Forensic identification connects the trace evidence collected at the crime to an object or suspect, and eventually to a perpetrator. DNA and fingerprint matches seem to be the most reliable, but even those can have a false positive rate—“the probability that an expert will conclude that a match exists when, in fact, there is no match”. From shows such as CSI I thought that fingerprint matching would be an easy task that was done by a computer. I did not know that an expert was going through each match the data base brought up and having to basically decide for him or herself if there is a match. One of the most interesting things in my opinion was learning about the CSI effect. It explains how television dramas make crime labs look extremely high tech and efficient when in reality most are over booked with cases because analyses are slow, in need of more funding, and produce ambiguous if not false results. Members of the jury place an unrealistic amount of weight on evidence found because of what they believe goes on behind the scene. I do not believe many members of the jury take into consideration the reality of crime labs or the false positive rate. The burden of proof lies within the prosecution, and evidence of any form facilitates their side of the case because of this.
This made me curious about how much the typical jury member knows about what is reliable and valid in the court of law as well as their average level of intelligence. I found http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2010/11/do-we-need-einsteins-in-the-jury-box-the-role-and-impact-of-juror-iq/ very interesting. From this site, one of the juror qualifications is a sound mind. It states that, “a "sound mind" reflects the ability to apply reason in a rational manner, in order to judge an ordinary matter. However, it is unclear whether or not this definition equates a sound mind with an average or above-average level of intelligence.” I understand that juries are carefully selected by attorneys, however, they are selecting them based on whether or not they think they will help their case, not in the best interest of creating an accurate and intelligent sample.
The handbook chronologically describes what happens at a crime scene. When police officers arrive, they have a plethora of jobs to do and to do quickly before anything gets contaminated. First, they have to create and maintain a barricade to secure the scene by keeping others out. They have to apprehend suspects or question bystanders on what they may have seen, or heard. They facilitate those who may have been injured in their seeking medical attention. These, among many other jobs that need done, have to be prosecuted with extreme care but also at a fast pace in order to ensure more reliability of the evidence. Once investigators arrive, they are filled in, or debriefed, about the scene. The thing that I found most interesting was also the most surprising. I did not know that officers played so many roles in crime scene investigations. As media portrays it, when investigators or detectives arrive, officers somehow become second rate citizens and unworthy of being there. Psychology relates to these guidelines in many ways. As discussed in class, sensation and perception are key factors to keep in mind when questioning witnesses. The emotional toll of seeing the crime committed is another aspect authority must understand. Social psychology plays an obvious role as authority interacts with others and vice versa. Behavioral psychology is used when officers have to calm others down or remove people from the crime scene.

Chapter 4 was all about the science of forensic identification. Forensic identification is the process of linking a piece of physical trace evidence to an individual (usually a criminal suspect). The authors discuss how it’s usually impossible to not leave some sort of trace evidence behind when a crime is committed. I thought it was interesting that before fingerprints were used as a form of identification, police used a technique called anthropometry. They took 11 different measurements from a person and recorded their individual results. It was used for over 2 decades before they realized that people could have the same exact measurements. The text discussed how trace evidence is used and the terms scientists use. Trace evidence is the evidence that police attain from a crime scene. The evidence is compared to samples taken from the suspect and if they match, then the scientists have made “source attribution”. A stronger term, “individuation”, means the trace must have come from the sample and couldn’t have come from any other source in the world. The chapter discussed how the similarities of the trace and sample are represented in court. The text also discussed the different types of reliability. The text talked about all the basics of using DNA as evidence; how alleles differ between samples. They also discussed how fingerprints can be used as evidence. There are specific terms used like “loops”, “whorls”, and “arches” to describe the shapes of the ridges in the prints. The books states that there are snowflakes that are so similar that they are indistinguishable, and suggests that this might be possible for fingerprints, but we don’t know at this point. “Ridgeologists” are professionals who examine and compare prints. This chapter also discussed the different errors that are made when using trace evidence, and how we can avoid them in the future. I also found it interesting when they discussed the “CSI Effect”. Due to shows like CSI, real-life jurors expect as much hard evidence and technical science as they see in the shows. Jurors begin to think that all cases should be solvable like in the shows. I found the CSI Effect to be very interesting so I looked up some more information.
I found this article by USA Today. It discusses the CSI Effect and how it’s affecting cases throughout the United States. Some prosecutors have even begun to ask potential jurors about their TV watching habits. It has been allowed in several states. Jurors rely too heavily on scientific findings and are unwilling to accept that those findings can be compromised by human errors.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-08-05-csi-effect_x.htm

CSI Handbook
The handbook discussed what is required of Crime Scene Investigators once they arrive at the scene of the crime. They must follow specific protocol to prevent contaminating any of the scene. It discussed how to properly document a scene and keep yourself and others safe once the scene is marked off. They have specific priorities to keep the scene contained. There are a lot of specifics when it comes to the handling of evidence. They have to follow the chain of custody. They need to properly collect, preserve, inventory, package, transport, and submit the evidence. It also lists the specific tools needed for each member that arrives at the scene. It also lists items in the evidence collection kits. I thought it was interesting to read all of these very specific instructions. I was surprised that there are such specific things to remember when documenting a crime scene.
I think social psychology plays a big part in this. All the different groups of people need to be able to work together and communicate effectively. They need to work cohesively to keep everything running correctly and with the least amount of errors possible.

CSI Handbook
The CSI Handbook described procedure for first responders, crime scene investigators, and scene processors needed to follow after a crime was committed. It is the job of the first responder, typically a police officer, to thoroughly assess the scene. Take in all the little details that will need to be known later. Were the lights on or off? Did the room have a particular smell? Was the door locked? Were the shades drawn? I think this was the most interesting part to me because all these small details could lead to bigger clues when it comes to identifying suspects and convicting the perpetrator. The first responder must also close off the scene. Probably the most important job of the first responder, besides attending to injured victims, is to make sure the crime scene isn't compromised. This includes both physically closing off the area with tape or other obstacles, but also by controlling the flow of people allowed in or out of the scene in order to make sure that no part of the scene is contaminated. One piece of information that surprised me was that the first responder has to assume that the crime is still in progress until proven otherwise. I've never really thought about the amount of caution a police officer has to practice when approaching a crime scene. The officer also has to document everything that he or she senses at the scene in order to give that information to the crime scene investigator.
The crime scene investigator further investigates the scene while still being careful not to contaminate or displace anything. They will get a report from the first responder about how the scene originally looked, smelled, sounded, etc. Afterward, they will conduct a "walk through" of the scene, making sure to document any fragile or already compromised evidence. Finally, the investigators will call in other necessary personnel to continue the assessment of the scene. These personnel will document the scene, taking pictures and gathering evidence to be processed later. When gathering evidence, the investigative team must prioritize evidence in a way that will give the most accurate depiction of the scene while not tampering with it as well. Then each piece of evidence is collected, documented, and packaged in order to be studied further.
After the evidence is safely packed away, the investigators will debrief about what was found, what kinds of tests will need to be ordered, and assigning post-investigation duties. After that, the investigators will go over the scene one more time to make sure nothing was missed or misplaced.
Finally, the investigators need to make sure that all the reports, statements, and evidence are documented so that they can be compiled into a case file to be independently reviewed later on.
Psychology was at play most probably in the first responder and in the investigative team. Obviously with first responders, the psychology of sensation is extremely important. Officers have to document everything they see, hear, smell, etc. in order to give a thorough evaluation to the investigators. Also, when dealing with victims, officers have to deal handle emotions delicately and may even have to deal with people suffering from a form of PTSD after more traumatic crimes. When dealing with witnesses, principles like submission to authority might come into play if a witness is unwilling to give a statement. Social psychology would come into play a lot, not just with witnesses or victims, but also with group dynamics in the investigatory team. The job probably won't be done as quickly or efficiently as it could be if the team members don't know or trust each other.

Chapter 4
Chapter 4 described the aspects of trace evidence and forensic identification. The chapter started out describing a more archaic method of identification called anthropometry (which to me sounds like anthropology and geometry smacked together, so it's the study of man's shape?). This was a method of identifying a person by using 11 different measurements of a person's body. It was an early stage of biometrics. Today we use a lot more advanced and accurate forms of biometrics like fingerprint and retina identification. The chapter goes on to discuss identification procedure using trace evidence (both at the scene or transported from the scene) and "matching" it with samples taken from suspects and victims. One thing I found really interesting and informative about this chapter was the fact that the term "match" is misleading, since no piece of evidence can be perfectly matched with a person or other object. In fact, some "matching" methods, like bullet matching, have been proven to be completely wrong. I had actually heard of that before reading this chapter. A few years ago, I watch an episode of 60 Minutes that documented over 30 men wrongfully convicted (4 of which were on death row) partially due to "bullet matching" evidence. It's hard to imagine how many more people had been wrongfully convicted because of faulty identification methods.
The chapter continued by talking about DNA evidence. Once again, I was surprised to find that not even DNA evidence is always 100% correct because DNA tests can yield ambiguous results, and analysts may resort to using random match possibilities to identify samples.
Afterward, the chapter talked about fingerprints: the shape and formations of them, the people who test them, the biases that can be formed from them. In particular, I found the presence of a confirmation bias in the legal system to be dangerous. If investigators only look for evidence that will confirm what they think is true, then a lot of other evidence could be disregarded. That's a little scary to think about.
The chapter then discussed some techniques with unknown or weak validity, like bite marks. It also described ways to reduce error and bias, especially ways that used science as a reducer of bias.
The chapter ended discussing how juries think about trace evidence. It seems like statistics are a double edged sword when it comes to presenting evidence, because while using statistics is an excellent way to keep evidence consistent and scientific, they are also difficult for jurors to comprehend and will sometimes be completely disregarded or possibly completely exaggerated.
I learned about confirmation bias a little in my social psychology class, and I think it's really interesting, so I wanted to do some research about it in different contexts. One interesting article I read was about a confirmation bias regarding the sexual double standard. The scientists tested and found that people remembered more information that supported the existence of a double standard than refuted it.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f448v1hm5320m738/
Another article I read talk about reasons why investigators would be motivated to engage in confirmation bias. It discussed how investigators were driven by a need for cognitive closure (NFC), in other words they just wanted to figure it out. The article was a little harder to understand at some parts, but I found it very interesting.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jip.19/abstract

Summarize the chapter. What is the most interesting thing you learned? What surprised you the most? What is something you want to learn more about? Search on that topic and report on some additional information about that topic. Provide any links to resources.

Chapter 4 begins by explaining that it is almost impossible to not leave evidence at a crime and although evidence can be found it is very hard to trace where it came from. Bertillon devised an 11 measurement system that was later ruled out due to the discovery of fingerprinting. If they can find a match between the evidence and the suspect it is concluded that he did the crime, but if they disprove the link the suspect is set free. Evidence like fingerprints are forever. people always have the same fingerprint so it is fair to prosecute them based on that but something like handwriting can be changed overtime and is not as valid of a piece of evidence.
There are varying degrees of a match of evidence to suspect in a qualitative statement ranging from inconclusive to reasonable certainty. Simple match is much more basic and general and in some cases can be easily ruled out in the case of things like glass types. Match plus statistics can tell you how rare or common evidence you found is. like a womens shoe size of 8 is much more common then a shoe size of 13.
If something is reliable it can be repeated over and over and if something is valid it does what its suppose to do. This is used when deciding if a technique is worth using. If it is not reliable or valid then a new technique should probably be used.
The discover of DNA was a huge breakthrough for investigators. If DNA was found at the scene is was very easy to prove or disprove that the suspect was guilty. But you many not always get a perfect strand of DNA which makes it harder to prosecute the suspect. RMPs are used to determine the likelihood that the DNA belongs to that suspect.
Finger prints can be a valid for of evidence as long as its a good print. Points of everyones fingerprint have a significance but weather that significance is just significant for you or several other people can make a big difference.
There are many other kinds of evidence that are not very strong, like bullet matching or tool marks. Investigators are highly trained to maintain accuracy in collecting evidence and continue training throughout their career.
One error jurors make is placing to little improtance on probablilities. A percentage can be interpreted differently by several jurors and that interpretation can have a dramatic effect on weather the suspect is found to be innocent or guilty.

Then most interesting things I learned was that bullet matching is not as valid of a piece of evidence as I thought it was. TV shows always make it seem so important and accurate but in the real world its not like that.

The most surprising thing I learned was how differently a percentage can be interpreted and how carefully the prosecutors have to word things in order for the jurors to rule in their favor. The same number can be worded 3 different ways but for some reason one ways seems stronger and more valid then another.

Something I want to learn more about is the 11 measurement system.
Bertillon began his career as a clerk for Paris police and he realized that was little reliable criminal identification systems so he developed the 11 measurement system that measure 11 unalterable parts of the body with callipers, gauges and rulers. It measured height,head length, head breadth, arm span, sitting height, left middle finger length, left little finger length, left foot length, right ear length, and cheek width. The probability of someone having the same measurements and you could easily pick someone out of a lineup based on the measurements. Although his 11 measurement system didnt stay he had a large impact on the mugshots we still use today.
sites.google.com/site/newzealandpolicemuseum/home/online-exhibitions/mug-shots/beyondmugshots/bertillon

Bertillons father was an anthropologist who worked to prove that each person had unique physical variations and Bertillons used his idea in police work. Bertillon calculated that two people having the same measurements were one in 4 million. Bertillon was thought to be a little crazy at first until police used his measurements to identify over 800 suspects. Bertillons system came to a halt when the Wests were found to have identical measurements but then found to have unmistakably different finger prints.
http://www.dia.unisa.it/~ads/corso-security/www/CORSO-9900/biometria/Discovery.htm

Summarize the handbook. What was the most interesting part of it for you? What surprised you the most? What elements or aspects of Psychology do you think relate to these guidelines?

The handbook basically gives step by step instructions on what to do when you are a CSI at a crime scene. The proper protocol and procedures to ensure everything is done properly and legally.
What I found to be the most surprising is how much one person has to handle at a crime scene. If they are the first there then have to keep track of the people involved and keep them calm, decide who was calm and who wasn't, assess whats going on from sights, to sounds, to smells, keep people that are uninvolved away, find possible points of entry and exit of the suspect, make sure the evidence isn't tampered with, brief the investigators of whats going on and so much more. That is a lot of things for anyone to handle. It could be very easy for something to go wrong and ruin the entire investigation.
There are so many ways that psychology plays a role. Investigators have to be able to asses whats going on and see how anything can affect what has been seen or heard, the initial officer has to know how to keep everyone calm and play psychological games with them to do that. Also, each CSI has to know how to properly communicate with other CSI so nothing is misunderstood and see eye to eye with each other so things can run as smoothly as possible. It will prevent everyone from doing unnecessary work or ruining a part of the investigation.

This chapter explained what trace evidence was and applied it to all the different phases of a crime. Trace evidence is extremely importance. Trace evidence is the evidence at the crime that can hopefully link us to perpetrator in order to eliminate other suspects. A popular example we’ve all heard of is finger printing. After reading about this, it brought up a very good point. Unfortunately, trace evidence is not concrete. As the example I just brought up, sometimes the fingerprint is only a partial and completely useless. Other times it can bring up too much information and pull up multiple matches giving you multiple suspects. Another scenario with fingerprinting is that sometimes even if you can pull a clean print, the perpetrator may not even be in any of the databases. I liked this because I didn’t realize how most juries don’t grasp that. That’s called the CSI effect. They don’t realize that, unfortunately in most cases, there is no “black and white” in trace evidence.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/stimulus/2011/jul/7/casey-anthony-and-csi-effect/
I liked this source because it took the information I just read and applied it to everyday life. As you remember, this summer was the Casey Anthony trial. Society was shocked that the jury found her not guilty. This article examines the reasons this could have happened. One of those reasons is the CSI effect. I find this effect almost sad because I LOVE the television show “Bones”. However, watching that has only made me realize the complication of a crime scene and how there are so many variables.

I liked the CSI handbook because it made me think of a lot to the tv show “Bones”. Now I know that this show is FAR from what actually happens. However, one common theme I noticed between the two was contamination of evidence and the scene. Just like every show, there has to be drama in order to entangle viewers. Sometimes the drama on bones is that an officer has contaminated the evidence or the scene. It obviously is extremely important for officers to not do so, as it can severely effect the chances of finding the perpetrator. One thing I didn’t realize is the line between saving citizens and EMTs contaminating the scene. Obviously any contamination is negative, but the number one goal is to save as many people as possible. Sometimes it isn’t reasonable to be able to do both. One of the officers’ main job is to try and have both at the same time. Therefore they need to guide EMTs and be as helpful as they can. The first thing that comes to mind in how psychology plays a role with all of this is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In serious crimes, this can be an issue. Officers need to inform victims that this could be a side effect and the steps they need to take in order to get the help they may need.

Chapter 4 of C&K
This chapter discusses forensic identification in terms of fingerprinting and trace evidence. It also talked a lot about biased scientists that may interpret fingerprinting and trace evidence inaccurately. An innocent person may be sent to jail and a guilty person may be set free. What I found most interesting were tests that were run later. In these tests the scientists (or people, running, reading and interpreting the tests) were told that the fingerprints they were looking at were from a previous case they were found to match the defendant. Or they were told something like this defendant was wrongfully charged. Then they would have these ‘biased’ people run the tests and see what their results were. It showed that it is easy to bias the interpretation of those running these tests. Whether it’s intentional to try and get someone convicted or if it is simply them having hear hearsay around the building or office pertaining to the case.
The part that I found most surprising was how easy it is to smudge or ruin print. In other words how hard it is to leave a good/readable print. The text said that having too rough a surface might prevent a print from being readable. Also applying too much or too little pressure would affect whether or not a print could be read. This is all without considering things that may go wrong while trying to collect, send, process and read the print as evidence. There are several areas for the print to become less or unreadable. I would like to learn more about the machine and processes involved with matching DNA with someone. I have some experience with this in lab for a general science course but, I would like to know more in depth about the ways that even a machine’s reading can be interpreted inaccurately.
In doing further research I came across the Amanda Knox case. I remember somewhat follow the news updates and one stuck in my memory. There was some sort of forensic evidence recovered at the scene that Italian police say suggested or ‘proved’ Knox to be guilty. However, it was my understanding, that this machine had let’s say a fingerprint in it (I am not sure what type of evidence it was). The machine has a certain number of (alleles for DNA testing) points of a fingerprint that matches that of the defendant. In Knox’s case it was reported that this machine’s standards were lowered in that many many people could have also matched this DNA or fingerprint testing based on the number of matches this machine was using.
I also came across a few new machines that are currently being used by people called ‘DNA-detectives’. When forensic material is sent to these labs they are able to match and item on so many points that they can only 1 in however many people would match this well. It gives more certainty to whether or not this evidence shows or doesn’t show the defendant’s innocence. Based on the book it seemed like there was very little science in fingerprinting and trace evidence – that it depended on the biases or lack thereof of the person running the tests. This site suggested that there was a little more science and a little less ‘interpretation’ as long as enough DNA was provided or recovered from the scene. This topic is very interesting and I am excited to read more case studies that go along with what we’ve been reading and discussing in class.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/d/dna_evidence/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/06/magazine/dna-detectives.html
http://republicanredefined.com/2011/10/03/amanda-knox-acquitted-not-guilty-to-be-released-immediately/

CSI Handbook
The most interesting part for me was reading through this guidebook and being able to apply it to crime scene shows that I have seen before. While I was reading certain procedures I would remember brief moments of episodes. I play bits of these shows in my mind and try and see if they were following procedure or not. Not that this is a real life application of this information but, I do watch a lot of television and now I have a way to apply what we are learning in class to my daily life . There were two parts that surprised me. The first occurred while reading the back information before getting to the actual guidelines. They broke down the make-up of authors who helped designate these guidelines. I think the sample was a good representation of the different parts of the Unites States but the total amount of people helping came to approximately 44 persons. Maybe a lot of this information is common knowledge in other fields but in order to set a standard that the entire country will be held to – I thought they would need more people working in this project in order to finish this book/these guidelines.
The second bit that surprised me was the vagueness of the information provided here. Not only do the directions seem ‘easier said than done’ but they also leave a lot to be designated by the given situation. For instance when the guidelines say that the first at the scene must (do about a million things) check to see about injured people. They must secure the scene then help the injured person while making sure that they do not tamper with evidence (or change as little as possible). If there are multiple people at the scene they must make a note of everything that they say and do. They must try and keep those persons separate. Also if the scene is spread to multiple areas they must secure those scenes as much as possible. I am sure that I misunderstood parts of these guidelines and from I read I thought that all of these regulations make sense and would be beneficial if followed. It just seems that they are asking a lot and if there is a complex situation with multiple rooms or locations of the crime with multiple witnesses then I doubt it would be possible to follow this procedure.

Chapter four is about forensic identification. This including DNA, fingerprints, and physical trace evidence. It begins talking about old methods that were used such as anthropometry, developed in 1883. This involved taking 11 measurements of a person to be able to distinguish them from another person. The chapter also discusses biometrics and trace evidence. It also talked about the use of DNA and fingerprints. The fingerprint section had the information that surprised me the most mainly because of the story in the beginning where the man was falsely accused being the bomber that caused hundreds to die when it was just a case of mistaken identity based on his fingerprint. This surprised me because I thought that if you have multiple people analyzing a fingerprint and with the technology we have today, it would be impossible to get that wrong.

The topic that interested me the most was on psychometrics, which is the measurement of psychological characteristics. The idea of psychometrics was designed by Sir Francis Galton, who thought that by assessing people on their intelligence, and measuring different things such as their reaction time, cranium size, etc. he could distinguish people. This site gives lots of information regrading psychometrics, including where it came from, how it's used, and key concepts in psychometrics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometrics

The handbook was very interesting as well. This provided a detailed description of the procedures used when law enforcement officials arrive at the scene of a crime. It described absolutely everything from when they arrive to when they are actually investigating, when back-up arrives, etc. It is something that is not only handy for those in law enforcement but I think for the public to read also, in case they were to ever come across a crime scene. It gave some good information that seems like common sense but is still good to make sure people understand. Things such as making sure the area is clear and safe before entering, not touching anything in order to disturb the scene, and taking care of anyone that may be around and witnessed the crime. Taking notes on everything you see is also important, anything can be critical later on in the investigation, and you can't go back to the exact moment you came upon it.

What surprised me the most was when the book listed items for the different law enforcement officials that they should definitely bring and those that they said could be brought but aren't completely necessary. Some of the items I thought seemed very necessary, such as for the evidence technician, things like maps, privacy screens, a phone, and an audio recorder were all on the optional list, but to me those are things that would be essential.

Some elements of Psychology that would be crucial to these guidelines are things like knowing how some people react in different situations, so when a crime is discovered or committed in front of people, it may cause a worse reaction from the people that could have witnessed it, causing the responding officials to need to know how to take control of the situation. Being able to put themselves in everyone's shoes that could be involved is important. From people that may be scared or upset about what happened, to the people that committed the actual crime, so they can try and figure out what/how it happened.

Chapter Four Summary:
The chapter begins with details on the Madrid subway bombings. It discusses how the FBI found a man whose fingerprints they believed to be a 100 percent match. However the Spanish police, found a different man to be the perpetrator proving the FBI wrong. The first section section discuses physical trace. It describes what can be considered a trace. The section then moves on to forensic identification's roots in anthropometry. The section ends talking about Aphonse Bertillion and his work in the field of biometrics. The Measures and Meaning in Forensic Identification section begins by explain terms and procedures. It then describes the wording of different results. A match is also called an inclusion. Individuation is when a trace is from one source and their are no other possible matches. Inconclusive results are when the evidence is not quality enough to form a judgment on. Next the book talks about different form of evidence that have been seen in court. Not all of these, such as handwriting analysis, have been reliable. Next the book discuses the types of conclusions forensic scientists make concerning the similarity of a trace a a source. The four types the book mentions are qualitative statement, simple match,match plus statistics and individuation. The book the moves on to discuss what reliability and validity are, how they are tested, and the different types.
About halfway through the chapter the book begins to focus of the scientific foundation of forensic identification. It begins by discussingDNA, and how DNA is used by forensic scientists. Next it discusses fingerprints. The book talks about the different patterns: loop, whorl, and arch. It then moves on to discussing how examiners match fingerprints. Next the book focuses on how fingerprint identification is subjective because examiners can have biases. Next the book moves on to types of identification evidence that are considered to be weak or of unknown validity. Next the book moves on to tips on how to reduce error and bias. Finally, the chapter ends discussing the effect evidence has on jurors.

In this chapter I was most surprised about how many flaws fingerprint evidence has. I had believed that it was very close to strength in evidence as DNA is. This chapter exposed how much effect the examiners have in deciding if something is a match.

I wanted to learn more about how much effect evidence has on a jury.
I found an article titled "Statistical Evidence: How To Help Jurors Understand and Use It Properly". It provided suggestions on how I could use evidence in our upcoming case. It also provided infomation on heuristics. It descibes them as "Heuristics are rules of thumb people use to help them simplify the decision-making process."
http://www.juryresearch.decisionquest.com/litigation_library.php?NewsID=252
Next I read an article from the Orlando Sentinel titled "Jury can be confused by statistical evidence" I found it interesting that the article claimed "an average of about 10 percent of a juror's verdict is due to a preconceived view of life" I think that says a lot about how important quality jury selection is.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1990-02-20/news/9002202912_1_statistical-evidence-statistical-argument-red-hair

CSI Handbook
The handbook describes the processes used by crime scene investigators. It provides guidelines and procedures from the initial response to completing and recording the Crime Scene Investigation. It provides steps for securing the scene, conducting a scene assessment, processing the scene, and documenting the scene. The handbook provided information regarding the types of equipment every investigator should have.

The part that I was most interested in was the equipment . The sheer amount of items needed surprised me. From the unrealistic portrayals of CSI our culture has been exposed to on the media, I was unaware of all the tool used.

I believe all the necessary documentation required most relates to psychology. Through all the forms, biases is more rooted out. Mentioned in the handbook are several types of documentation, having several workers fill out the same form provides different views which can help those reviewing the materials determine an biases.

This chapter mainly focued on trace evidence and how analysts and examiners try and match this evidence with a suspect or defendant. Some of the topics they zoned in on were DNA, fingerprints, and physical evidence. How psychological biases are commonly used in identification was also discussed. There are four different levels on which scientists can conclude if a piece of evidence and a suspect match or not. They are, in order of lowest to highest certainty; excluded, inconclusive, inclusion, and individuation.
Class and individual characteristics are the two categories that are used when examining evidence. Individual characteristics are usually more helpful in the identification process because they are more likely to help pinpoint one specific person, instead of a group of people.
I was definitely most surprised by the fact that courts actually used bullet matching evidence. I am no gun or bullet expert, but it seems silly now that they used to believe that just because a group of bullets were in the same box, they would be more similar than a group of bullets in another box. I was surprised that they actually used handwriting analyses. Given all the very high error rates and all of the different factors that are likely to affect one’s handwriting, it was only a matter of time before this type of analysis was very reliable.
Scientists use four types of statements to communicate with the jury their results. The first type, qualitative, has the “six degrees of certainty” ranging from inconclusive to source attribution. The next is simple match. The third type is called match plus statistics, which uses probabilities. Lastly, individuation, which focuses more on individual characteristics.
When it comes to actually testing and trying to figure out if you can match the evidence to a specific suspect, it is important to make sure that the measures used are both reliable and valid.
The discovery of DNA was huge for forensic science and identification. It was a major advancement because there was less room for error than fingerprinting and other physical evidence. They use electropherograms to determine the height of the peaks at certain loci on a DNA strand. Analyst use random match probabilities to decide the probability that it was just a coincidence a person was DNA matched the evidence.
Fingerprints are often used to help in identifying perpetrators. Our fingerprints have three main characteristics that examiners look for; loops, whorls, and arches. This method of identification has two different types of error; the false positive and false negative. It’s difficult to know if you have an exact match because many people all over the world could have the same characteristic in the same spot. I found the opening story to this chapter very interesting. Many experts decided that a man’s fingerprints were a 100% match, but he was the wrong guy.
Cognitive biases play a major role when it comes to deciding whether the DNA matches a suspect, or a fingerprint has enough similarities to be determined a match. Many examiners may not realize it, but the outside information they are receiving about a certain case can have a pretty big influence on their decision about the evidence. The suspect might have confessed, or they might be under pressure to please the people above them.
I was also shocked by how confused jurors can get, but I can see how. They are getting all different kinds of evidence and probabilities and numbers thrown at them. I think it is important to present the evidence and scientific findings in a way that jurors can thoroughly understand.
The topic that interested me the most was how wrong fingerprints can be. I was surprised because I was always under the impression that no two fingerprints were the same, but it turns out two can be very similar two can be very similar. After reading through the website I found on the validity of fingerprints as evidence, I learned that it was actually challenged in 1999 in the case of United States v. Byron C. Mitchell. The court’s decision overruled the challenge and fingerprints were still considered a valid source of evidence.
http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/FingerprintScience.html

THe CSI Handbook was very thorough. It started off by telling us why and how the handbook was essentially made. It seemed like it was quite a rigorous process. There were 44 TWGCSI members who were wither forensic scientists, law enforcment, prosecutors, or defense attornys. These people worked together to come up with the context of this handbook. They focused on the main areas of crime scene investigation which fall in chronological order. They are ariving at the scene, preliminary documentation and evaluation of the scene, processing the scene, completing and recording the crime scene investigation, and crime scene equipment.

Each section, besides the equipment one (which just lists all of the supplies needed), goves instructions that include a principle, policy, procedure, and summary of what is important and what should happened at that point in investigating.

I was shocked at how much there is to remember to do. They literally go through every little thing possible to make sure nothing is messed up. The first responding officer seems to have to do all of the dirty work, securing the area and setting up the scene for investigation. In all of the crime shows in TV, they never really show this part of the crime, setting it all up for investigators.

Psychology plays a role in crime scene investigation in many ways. All parties involved have to be able to work together to effectively investigate. Also, the handbook stated that investigators and officers need to be strict with the scene while being compassionate towards witnesses, victims, and family memebers.

This chapter mainly focued on trace evidence and how analysts and examiners try and match this evidence with a suspect or defendant. Some of the topics they zoned in on were DNA, fingerprints, and physical evidence. How psychological biases are commonly used in identification was also discussed. There are four different levels on which scientists can conclude if a piece of evidence and a suspect match or not. They are, in order of lowest to highest certainty; excluded, inconclusive, inclusion, and individuation.

Class and individual characteristics are the two categories that are used when examining evidence. Individual characteristics are usually more helpful in the identification process because they are more likely to help pinpoint one specific person, instead of a group of people.
I was definitely most surprised by the fact that courts actually used bullet matching evidence. I am no gun or bullet expert, but it seems silly now that they used to believe that just because a group of bullets were in the same box, they would be more similar than a group of bullets in another box. I was surprised that they actually used handwriting analyses. Given all the very high error rates and all of the different factors that are likely to affect one’s handwriting, it was only a matter of time before this type of analysis was very reliable.
Scientists use four types of statements to communicate with the jury their results. The first type, qualitative, has the “six degrees of certainty” ranging from inconclusive to source attribution. The next is simple match. The third type is called match plus statistics, which uses probabilities. Lastly, individuation, which focuses more on individual characteristics.
When it comes to actually testing and trying to figure out if you can match the evidence to a specific suspect, it is important to make sure that the measures used are both reliable and valid.
The discovery of DNA was huge for forensic science and identification. It was a major advancement because there was less room for error than fingerprinting and other physical evidence. They use electropherograms to determine the height of the peaks at certain loci on a DNA strand. Analyst use random match probabilities to decide the probability that it was just a coincidence a person was DNA matched the evidence.
Fingerprints are often used to help in identifying perpetrators. Our fingerprints have three main characteristics that examiners look for; loops, whorls, and arches. This method of identification has two different types of error; the false positive and false negative. It’s difficult to know if you have an exact match because many people all over the world could have the same characteristic in the same spot. I found the opening story to this chapter very interesting. Many experts decided that a man’s fingerprints were a 100% match, but he was the wrong guy.
Cognitive biases play a major role when it comes to deciding whether the DNA matches a suspect, or a fingerprint has enough similarities to be determined a match. Many examiners may not realize it, but the outside information they are receiving about a certain case can have a pretty big influence on their decision about the evidence. The suspect might have confessed, or they might be under pressure to please the people above them.
I was also shocked by how confused jurors can get, but I can see how. They are getting all different kinds of evidence and probabilities and numbers thrown at them. I think it is important to present the evidence and scientific findings in a way that jurors can thoroughly understand.
The topic that interested me the most was how wrong fingerprints can be. I was surprised because I was always under the impression that no two fingerprints were the same, but it turns out two can be very similar two can be very similar. After reading through the website I found on the validity of fingerprints as evidence, I learned that it was actually challenged in 1999 in the case of United States v. Byron C. Mitchell. The court’s decision overruled the challenge and fingerprints were still considered a valid source of evidence.
http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/FingerprintScience.html

THe CSI Handbook was very thorough. It started off by telling us why and how the handbook was essentially made. It seemed like it was quite a rigorous process. There were 44 TWGCSI members who were wither forensic scientists, law enforcment, prosecutors, or defense attornys. These people worked together to come up with the context of this handbook. They focused on the main areas of crime scene investigation which fall in chronological order. They are ariving at the scene, preliminary documentation and evaluation of the scene, processing the scene, completing and recording the crime scene investigation, and crime scene equipment.

Each section, besides the equipment one (which just lists all of the supplies needed), goves instructions that include a principle, policy, procedure, and summary of what is important and what should happened at that point in investigating.

I was shocked at how much there is to remember to do. They literally go through every little thing possible to make sure nothing is messed up. The first responding officer seems to have to do all of the dirty work, securing the area and setting up the scene for investigation. In all of the crime shows in TV, they never really show this part of the crime, setting it all up for investigators.

Psychology plays a role in crime scene investigation in many ways. All parties involved have to be able to work together to effectively investigate. Also, the handbook stated that investigators and officers need to be strict with the scene while being compassionate towards witnesses, victims, and family memebers.

This chapter mainly focued on trace evidence and how analysts and examiners try and match this evidence with a suspect or defendant. Some of the topics they zoned in on were DNA, fingerprints, and physical evidence. How psychological biases are commonly used in identification was also discussed. There are four different levels on which scientists can conclude if a piece of evidence and a suspect match or not. They are, in order of lowest to highest certainty; excluded, inconclusive, inclusion, and individuation.

Class and individual characteristics are the two categories that are used when examining evidence. Individual characteristics are usually more helpful in the identification process because they are more likely to help pinpoint one specific person, instead of a group of people.

I was definitely most surprised by the fact that courts actually used bullet matching evidence. I am no gun or bullet expert, but it seems silly now that they used to believe that just because a group of bullets were in the same box, they would be more similar than a group of bullets in another box. I was surprised that they actually used handwriting analyses. Given all the very high error rates and all of the different factors that are likely to affect one’s handwriting, it was only a matter of time before this type of analysis was very reliable.
Scientists use four types of statements to communicate with the jury their results. The first type, qualitative, has the “six degrees of certainty” ranging from inconclusive to source attribution. The next is simple match. The third type is called match plus statistics, which uses probabilities. Lastly, individuation, which focuses more on individual characteristics.

When it comes to actually testing and trying to figure out if you can match the evidence to a specific suspect, it is important to make sure that the measures used are both reliable and valid.
The discovery of DNA was huge for forensic science and identification. It was a major advancement because there was less room for error than fingerprinting and other physical evidence. They use electropherograms to determine the height of the peaks at certain loci on a DNA strand. Analyst use random match probabilities to decide the probability that it was just a coincidence a person was DNA matched the evidence.

Fingerprints are often used to help in identifying perpetrators. Our fingerprints have three main characteristics that examiners look for; loops, whorls, and arches. This method of identification has two different types of error; the false positive and false negative. It’s difficult to know if you have an exact match because many people all over the world could have the same characteristic in the same spot. I found the opening story to this chapter very interesting. Many experts decided that a man’s fingerprints were a 100% match, but he was the wrong guy.

Cognitive biases play a major role when it comes to deciding whether the DNA matches a suspect, or a fingerprint has enough similarities to be determined a match. Many examiners may not realize it, but the outside information they are receiving about a certain case can have a pretty big influence on their decision about the evidence. The suspect might have confessed, or they might be under pressure to please the people above them.

I was also shocked by how confused jurors can get, but I can see how. They are getting all different kinds of evidence and probabilities and numbers thrown at them. I think it is important to present the evidence and scientific findings in a way that jurors can thoroughly understand.

The topic that interested me the most was how wrong fingerprints can be. I was surprised because I was always under the impression that no two fingerprints were the same, but it turns out two can be very similar two can be very similar. After reading through the website I found on the validity of fingerprints as evidence, I learned that it was actually challenged in 1999 in the case of United States v. Byron C. Mitchell. The court’s decision overruled the challenge and fingerprints were still considered a valid source of evidence.
http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/FingerprintScience.html

THe CSI Handbook was very thorough. It started off by telling us why and how the handbook was essentially made. It seemed like it was quite a rigorous process. There were 44 TWGCSI members who were wither forensic scientists, law enforcment, prosecutors, or defense attornys. These people worked together to come up with the context of this handbook. They focused on the main areas of crime scene investigation which fall in chronological order. They are ariving at the scene, preliminary documentation and evaluation of the scene, processing the scene, completing and recording the crime scene investigation, and crime scene equipment.

Each section, besides the equipment one (which just lists all of the supplies needed), goves instructions that include a principle, policy, procedure, and summary of what is important and what should happened at that point in investigating.

I was shocked at how much there is to remember to do. They literally go through every little thing possible to make sure nothing is messed up. The first responding officer seems to have to do all of the dirty work, securing the area and setting up the scene for investigation. In all of the crime shows in TV, they never really show this part of the crime, setting it all up for investigators.

Psychology plays a role in crime scene investigation in many ways. All parties involved have to be able to work together to effectively investigate. Also, the handbook stated that investigators and officers need to be strict with the scene while being compassionate towards witnesses, victims, and family memebers.

Chapter Four of the Costanzo and Krauss book addressed the major components involved with the collection of forensic evidence. The process of collecting physical evidence that can be linked as a source to a particular suspect, known as forensic identification, is the foundation to today's modern forensic practices. The forensic process evolved over time starting with methods such as anthropometry and biometrics. As these processes became more fundamental within the criminal system, they also had to undergoe assimilation into the legal realm. Examples of this application could be the level of legitamacy a particular piece of evidence presents based on a sceintists analyses (source attribution, inclusion, and individuation). The main scientific applications of evidence in the forensic process are DNA and Fingerprints. These two types of forensic evidence are generally the most reliable in discovering a perpetrator. However, these types of evidence are not always one hundred percent conclusive. For instance, mistakes while collecting evidence, mass inconsistencies among prints, and jury misunderstanding or bias are all situations that prove problematic for these two types of forensic evidence. Furthermore, the dyanmic of most forensic teams do not exhibit a scientific style in which peer review of findings is consistent. In order to prevent these issues, forensic teams often perform double blind studies that help determine the validity of their evidence analysis. Additionally, efforts are being made to communicate evidence and statistics to jury members so it's easily understandable. The effeciency of forensic collection has exceeded over the last one hundred years, but there are still areas that need to improve in order to cement forensic evidence in the legal realm.

This chapter shed a lot of light on information that was relatively unfamiliar to me. I have very little experience with forensic evidence collection and analysis other than an occasional viewing of Law and Order. I think what was most interesting to learn in this chapter was the forensic inconsistencies that are involved with bullet matching. I was always under the impression that matching striations on bullets could prove what gun had been used and who had used it. Quite the contrary. Bullets have structual and chemical similarities throughout their worldwide production regarding a particular model. Learning this has shifted my mindset on the forensic process regarding gun crimes.

Learning about the different phases of the forensic evidence process definitely gave me a broader understanding of the entire investigation process. However I wanted to learn more about juror bias involved in hearing evidence testimony. After visiting one particular source I discovered that the potential for juror bias is immense. For instance, jurors commonly overestimate their understanding of a case, and inadvertantly interperet the evidence incorrectly. Furthermore, jurors often weigh their decisions heavily on the problematic witness testimony of the defendant and supporting witnesses. This trend tends to lead to a phenomenon where the jury becomes sympathetic witht the defendant. Juror bias is common and hard to counteract, but attorneys are working to develop better ways to communicate the case clearly to the court.
http://www.writing.uci.edu/mahajan2.pdf

The CSI handbook was an instructive manual designed to demonstrate the guidelines necessary for executing an efficient crime scene investigation. The major components, or steps, involved were Initial Response/Prioritization of Efforts, Documentation and Evaluation of the Scene, the actual Processing of the Scene, Recording the Investigation, and the Equipment involved. Each of these components laid forth guidelines and instructions that were crucial in each of their process such as addressing witnesses, laying tape, preserving the crime scene, etc. I thought the most interesting part of the handbook was the guidelines set forth for preserving the crime scene. I did not realize how important maintaining the setting of an incident was for collection of evidence. What surprised me the most was how extensive the list of supplies was. I had always thought the massive amount of tools portrayed in television shows was irrational, but this handbook certainly affirms the large amount of necessities involved in forensic investigations. A major element of psychology that is involved with the crime scence process would probably the gathering of potential witnesses or suspects by officers and detectives. These officers use complex systems of questioning to understand a persons whereabouts, connection to the victim, and possible motives. Furthermore, these questions often require witnesses to revert to there sensory memory in order to remember what they saw, heard, or smelled. The CSI handbook was an interesting and informative source for understanding the crime scence investigation method.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178280.pdf

This chapter mainly focuses on the evidence and how it is traced. It is nearly impossible to leave any sort of evidence behind to trace the crime and the person who committed the crime, otherwise known as forensic identification. The DNA fingerprints are very key to have because they tend to be the strongest in determining identification on a person who happens to have their DNA be a match in the crime scene. However there can be errors in this system, especially when trace evidence can become contaminated with by having outsiders give the examiners different findings on the identification, which might throw them completely off with their evidence they’ve gathered beforehand . Like this world not everything is perfect, so the examiners and officials who are wanting to solve a crime may run into a bumpy road along the way, but as time goes on, technology seems to continue to grow, and I’m sure as technology continues to grow, so will the evidence to prove the bad guys who do the crime pay the price of spending their time in a jail cell.

The part that was most interesting and surprising to me would probably be the DNA evidence and the fingerprinting. It was interesting to read about how fingerprinting may not always be reliable when finding the right people that would be connected to the crime because sometimes the fingerprints may lead you astray. But what’s interesting is that a persons’ fingertips or palms can be left behind in a crime scene where they can bring that evidence to the courts and help convict the suspect. So sometimes the fingerprints can be wrong, while other times they can be right.

The fingerprint identification really did catch my eye in this chapter, so here’s some more info I found on them.
http://www.aladdinusa.com/documentationservices/fingerhistory.htm
In this website it’s basically a history list of how fingerprinting came to be. A few mentions talked about how no two fingerprints are exactly the same. I’ve actually always been told that in a few of my science class, but it’s still mind blowing when you hear or read about it. I know when I had a dell computer it asked me to do a fingerprint as my password, I did. But somehow one of my cousins was able to get into my computer by doing one of her fingerprints. Most likely she just got lucky, at least that’s what I’m going to go with. Also it says here that the English started doing fingerprinting in July of 1858, so it’s been around for a decently long time.

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00206/lo_nts_fingerprinting.htm
In this source, something I came across was the assigning of values to prints. There were 1024 individual codes that Edward came up with that ensured that any set of prints could be filed using these codes. This system actually helped identify may criminals who were working under aliases.

The CSI Handbook basically describes how a crime scene investigation should be handled when it comes to what types of methods and precautions that need to followed. It mentions that the law enforcement officers need to protect the crime scene. The officers need to be aware of their surroundings when they come in contact with their crime scene, knowing the people, and all the factors that surround them as they enter the scene. Basically the officer is in charge of making sure the scene is under control, so no contamination can take place, while investigation is taking place. The scene needs to be documented to make sure all the necessary information is obtained. Investigators do a walk through, then a final walk through to make sure they have collected everything, including what the officers give them from their interviews they’ve conducted on witnesses, etc. All of this information is collected in a case file to be reviewed later on.

The most important thing to me is how the crime scene is handled with the security and the collection of evidence being secured as well. Everyone needs to make sure the evidence is correct and that no one has tampered with it. Nothing really surprised me in the handbook because I watch a lot of NCIS and SVU, so I’ve grown to know some of the things they do in the show, actually happens out in the real world. I believe that behavioral psychology takes an important role in this because the officers have to consider everyone that is around them when they conduct their investigation the crime scene. The behaviors of the people can come across of being either honest or not and you could easily tell if they were feeling uncomfortable or comfortable with what was happening around them.

Chapter four talked about a very important part of the relationship between psychology and law which is the psychology of forensic identification (DNA, Fingerprints, and trace evidence). This chapter starts with a very alarming story about a man suspected in a crime based off of fingerprints that were presumed to be a "100% match", when they actually were not his at all. Cases like this question the validity of fingerprint matching and evidence and question the justice system for using this type of evidence to implicate suspects.

This chapter also explains the acquisition, analysis, interpretation, and usage in the court system. From the most certain of forensic identification techniques(DNA matching) to some uncertain like fingerprinting. Each method has perks and draw backs to the way that the evidence is interpreted by the law but the underlining theme is to find out what the evidence really means.

The part that interested me the most was that false positives do occur and a lot of factors go into trying to correctly interpret the evidence.

I wanted to learn more about jury competency so I looked up a few articles. I found that jury competency is not empirically tested as much, though there have been studies done to empirically test jury competence. The experts argue on both sides about it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=I0ACl7Wq_oIC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=jury+competence&source=bl&ots=FSrg0lXz-H&sig=mk0WofLyPmhNxNd6KECnjkQWm_g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5IInT7DnDMS22gXRt-3TAg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=jury%20competence&f=false

I also wanted to learn more about the Madrid bombings so I searched around and found this one article claiming that the Oregon lawyer was only one of twenty false positives identified in that case. I found that to be very interesting yet disheartening.

http://riskman.typepad.com/perilocity/2007/10/fingerprint-fal.html

The CSI handbook was very informative. It described the roles and duties of the crime scene investigators from the moment they get to the crime scene till they file it away. CSI's have to be very meticulous at their job because the crime scene tells the story and they have to read it. As cheesy as it may sound it's their job, things like perception, temperature, weather and human error can effect a crime scene.

The part that I was most interested in was the documentation and evaluation of the scene because it is the most important part. Everything must be precise.

I think some of the things in the handbook relate very closely to some things in psychology. I think that perception plays a big role in evaluating a crime scene and with everyone's perception being different procedures have to be thorough. The amount of documentation that has to be done for a crime scene alone gives a wealth of knowledge similar to psychology everything is documented and based off of facts. The same goes for biases, the percentage of error is always relevant in both psychology and crime scene investigation.