Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
[ Music ]
>> So, hello everyone and, yes, thank you for inviting me
to come over and talk to you about the report writing in EU
which I was asked to do and which really is a big, big task.
We will see why later on and so I choose just to talk about it
from the perspective of the European Fibres Group.
It goes to talk for the trace evidence groups in Europe
that would be not-- would have been possible.
So, report writing in EU.
I will briefly go over the following.
I want to talk a little bit about the situation in Europe,
the role of ENFSI which is a European Network
of Forensic Science Institutes and also I want to talk
about the tendencies we found within the European Fibres Group
which has changed over the last couple of years.
Looking at the map, I think you can see that's the European
Network of Forensic Science Institutes, holds quite a number
of institutes all over Europe.
All, the ENFSI members are about 61 institutes originating
from 35-- 34 countries, speaking 30 different languages
and having different legal systems
which is quite a difficulty to come to terms with.
Additionally, we have Associate Members in our Working Groups.
Associate Members are not part of the European or of ENFSI
but the different working groups like fibers, paint,
and glass can have associate members in the working groups
and they come from Australia, Canada, other European countries
as well, Israel and the United States.
So the question is common language English?
Yes, when we meet up our common language is English.
But when we write reports the country's language is the
language you have to choose.
That causes a number of problems you can imagine probably.
So, looking at this other map and looking at the small arrows
on the right-hand side you probably can see here
that not even the characters used here are the same
because the Russian people use completely different characters
so it's quite difficult to find a common understanding.
ENFSI, about the role of ENFSI.
The mission statement of ENFSI is
that ENFSI has been established with a purpose
of sharing knowing, exchanging experiences,
and coming to mutual agreements
in the field of forensic science.
So, the aim is that ENFSI is recognized
as a pre-eminent voice in forensic science worldwide
by ensuring the quality of development and its delivery
of forensic science throughout Europe.
It will be, therefore, strengthen
and consolidate ENFSI,
expand the membership throughout Europe while maintaining the
development and credibility of ENFSI, establish
and maintain a working relationship
with other similar organizations,
and encourage all ENFSI laboratories to comply
with best practice and international standards
for quality and competence assurance.
So, what is the general intention regarding
report writing?
To harmonize the scale of conclusion,
to implement an approach for evaluation of evidence,
to educate the employees on the subject,
and to inspire the employees on the subject as well.
So, I've chosen to show you two different samples.
One of these examples is originating from the UK,
the other is from Germany, at least its Germany
and not Denmark so it's related to a car number plates.
We have to identify our country
when we have our cars from the streets.
So, you can see on the left-hand side the UK example
which originates from Ray Palma.
So the structure is qualifications and experience,
information received, continuity, purpose,
technical issues, examination and results,
interpretation, and conclusion.
On the right-hand side you see a sample from our laboratory;
material received, material assessment, examination order
and purpose, methods, technical issues, information received,
examination and results, interpretation, and conclusion.
They differ slightly
but in general terms I think we do the same
and I think that's a mutual agreement throughout the whole
European Fibres Group community
that the least things have to be addressed.
The only thing which is questionable, I think,
is that some of the laboratories,
the smaller laboratories,
rarely do interpretation and conclusion.
I think they turn to just deliver the examination results
and we will come to that later on again.
So what is the role of the expert?
That's a question [inaudible] state bare fact,
interpret analytical results/spectra,
discuss error rates, et cetera.
Also interpret the evidence on a source level and in addition,
interpret the evidence on the activity level.
You can see, again, from the chart on the right-hand side
that the answers to that all over Europe as diverse
as the countries the laboratories originate from.
So in forensic investigation we have to deal with the facts.
And we examine facts and do some interpretation afterwards
and draw our conclusions.
Then, a report is written, well, probably also oral stated.
The most important thing in our opinion is
that the reporting is done with transparency.
This is an approach also the Swedish laboratory in Linkoping
in Sweden does and I've chosen also
to implement some of their ideas.
So this is also an example how they put
up their different levels.
It's a nine scale level and they use that for--
since a couple of years
in different areas with trace evidence.
It's just one possibility but I want
to show you what's going on across Europe.
The Swedish laboratory called it also a likelihood approach.
It is also called a logical approach
and this is based on the Bayes rules.
Ray Palma already talked about that during the meeting
and I will give you a short example who that probably works
out and how, yes, we can handle cases
with a little bit more information.
In this case, example of the victim was attacked
by an offender from behind and as a result we got
or we found a number for fibers originating most likely
from the different textiles in question.
The blue arrows show the transfer of fibers originating
from the guy's textiles and garments
and the red arrow show the transfer of fibers originating
from the lady's textiles and garments.
The comments in bracket are indicating the findings
on the back of the-- or backside
of the garments and looking at that.
So, one could probably draw the conclusion
that it might have been a cross transfer of fibers.
Just looking at the chart,
it could have been a little bit misleading and looking at it
in a little bit more detail brings us to another conclusion.
So we tried to fit the results into the actions taking place
on the scene and discussed what we expected
as a fiber distribution on the textiles.
And looking what happened, what supposedly happened
on the scene we would have expected
that the fibers originating
from the lady's garments would have been found
on the front side of the guy's garments including probably the
lower sleeves.
>> The found distribution showed a little bit otherwise.
Most of the fibers originating from the skirt
of the girl showed on the backside of the guy's trousers
and this seemed a little bit suspicious.
Otherwise, let's see.
Otherwise, we also found a couple of fibers here
in the front area but not as many as we expected.
So we thought about the possibility
that packaging could have caused redistribution
but that seemed a little bit unlikely in total
because the backside was quite full of fibers from the skirt.
So then we looked at the lady's garments
and so what we expected was that we should find the most fibers
on the back of the jacket and on the back of the skirt.
In looking at the results,
the expected fiber distribution was partly in accordance
to what we expected--
oops, partly in accordance to what we expected, ah,
I'm fighting a bit, in this area here
but there were also fibers missing
on the back of the jacket.
So, that left us with couple of questions.
[ Pause ]
>> So, the question was what to do now.
Paul Kirk said that, "All the responsibility of medicine,
the intricacy of the law and the universal--
universality of science,
in as much as it carries higher penalties for error
than other professions, it is not a matter to take lightly,
nor to trust to luck.". So, therefore,
we asked also what do we expert the expert
to do in such a situation?
State that there is a disagreement between location
of findings and the victims' stated case history
which needs further discussion.
That would have been one option.
We could have left the statement out but, otherwise,
we find the obligation to include that.
To leave you not in the dark I want
to show you what actually happened from crime scene
to laboratory because it was discussed in court.
And what you can see is that the guy in question was transported
in a police car to the police station.
After that, the police guy returned
and the girl was transported, guess what, on the same car
to the police station again.
That explains a one direction of transfer of fibers
but not everything but it gets better.
So the girl and her sister went to the police.
She was questioned in this room and after
that the guy was questioned there anyway.
So, I think it's our responsibility to make people
in courts aware of what we found
if we have the background information.
And so, it's also possibility to go further into details.
We look at the likelihood approach.
So based on Bayes theory evaluation is done
in the framework of the case circumstances
and at least two propositions, hypotheses, should be addressed,
often the prosecution versus the defense.
And the role of the forensic expert is
to express the probability of the findings according
to a given hypothesis and not the probably
of the hypothesis according to the actual findings.
[ Pause ]
>> So, interpretation as the process on the way
to a conclusion and statement.
We need to take into account the background information and data,
framework of the case.
What has happened?
What is alleged?
Take in the observation and findings combine it
with personal experience which is supported by other knowledge,
colleagues, literature, studies.
And I will give you another example which is originating
from Ray Palmer from the Forensic Science Service.
It is the case where the purpose of the examination was to assist
in determining whether or not either of the two subjects
in question had worn the items of clothing discarded
in an alleyway close to the burglary.
So, the interpretation follows this way.
In order to assess the significance of the findings
in this case he has considered two proposals.
Suspect 1 and Suspect 2 had been in recent contact
with the coat number one.
And Suspect 1 and Suspect 2 had not been in recent contact
with the coat and the findings are coincidental.
So the results of published studies have consistently shown
that the chances of finding significant numbers
of a particular non-ubiquitous fiber type/color combination
on a random surface are extremely small.
If Suspect 1 and 2 had not been in contact with the coat,
then I would not have expected
to find fibers matching its lining on their clothing.
Published studies have also shown that the majority
of fibers transferred to a garment will be lost
in the first 2 hours following contact.
The results of the fiber analysis relating
to Suspect 1 are what would be expected from a prolonged
and relatively forceful contact with the lining of the coat
such as if he had worn the garment.
I therefore consider there to be greater support
for the first proposal than the second.
So the conclusion, in Ray's opinion the results
of the examination in this case provide; strong support
for the view that Suspect 1 had been in recent contact
with the coat and also strong support for the view
that Suspect 2 had recently worn the coat.
So back to Paul Kirk, you remember that?
So I think it's also a little bit free to interpretation
but I stick to the responsibility
and this is the way some labs in Europe go in the meantime.
They take a logic approach like in the base approach
which not necessarily means that you have to deal with numbers.
They look at cases from a broader perspective.
And they move to the activity level.
They don't only interpret the source level.
They try to find out if the results fit
into the actions taking place on the scene.
And take on more responsibility this way.
I think it is more difficult to do that
and I think it needs also lots of experience.
But it is a way to go and it is a possibility because, I think,
I feel that very often in Europe the courts are at a lost.
What do the findings actually mean?
And I always have the feel that they need quite some sort
of interpreter, someone explaining the results.
What do they mean in the context of the case?
And that was what I wanted to give you to think.
I thank you for your attention and in the end I want also
to grab the opportunity to tell you that next year in The Hague,
European Academy of Forensic Science meeting is taking place.
There is a website and just note that the date has changed.
Thank you very much.
[ Applause ]