A History of Forensic Science in 10 Publications
Description
Explores the foundations of forensic science through its most influential and transformative publications
A History of Forensic Science in 10 Publications offers a unique and essential account of how forensic science has evolved into the complex, multidisciplinary field it is today. Unlike dramatized portrayals in popular media, this book provides a grounded, scholarly perspective on the real-world development of forensic practice through a detailed examination of ten pivotal publications. Author Sean Doyle, a highly respected practitioner with nearly five decades of experience in the field, charts the intellectual and scientific journey that has shaped modern forensic science-from early procedural texts to contemporary debates around interpretation, bias, and standardization.
Each chapter situates a landmark publication within its broader historical, scientific, and legal context, tracing its influence on subsequent research, professional standards, and the justice system. Doyle demonstrates how these works have sparked methodological shifts, provoked philosophical debates, prompted regulatory reforms, and led the way to current practices. The book's clear and engaging analytical narrative offers a structured way to understand how forensic science has been, and continues to be shaped by its literature.
Filling a critical gap in scholarship by focusing on the foundational texts that have informed both practice and policy, A History of Forensic Science in 10 Publications:
- Integrates historical, scientific, and legal perspectives into a unified narrative of forensic development
- Highlights lesser-known yet pivotal works that are often overlooked in current curricula and literature
- Connects foundational publications to contemporary practices such as probabilistic genotyping and forensic genealogy
- Discusses the evolving principles behind forensic interpretation, objectivity, and standardization
- Demonstrates how scientific literature has influenced legal outcomes, regulatory frameworks, and public understanding
Organized into thematic chapter groupings that guide readers through related developments and incremental research, A History of Forensic Science in 10 Publications: How They Established Current Practice is ideal for undergraduate students in forensic science, criminal justice, and criminology programs, as well as educators, legal professionals, and general readers interested in the science behind crime-solving.
More details
Other editions
Additional editions
Person
Sean Doyle is a forensic scientist with extensive expertise in forensic chemistry, explosives, and crime scene investigation. He began his career at the UK Laboratory of the Government Chemist and later led casework and research at the Forensic Explosives Laboratory under the UK Ministry of Defence. He now directs Linked Forensic Consultants Ltd in New Zealand. An active lecturer and member of international forensic standards committees, Doyle has made significant contributions to forensic science practice and education.
Content
About the Author xi
Acknowledgements xiii
List of Abbreviations xv
Terms, Definitions and Explanations xix
Introduction 1
1 The Handbook 11
Name of the Publication 11
Introduction 12
Biography of the Publication 13
Professional Biography of the Author 15
Contexts 17
Science 17
History 19
The Structure of the Handbook and Relevant Content 20
Introduction 20
Part 1 'General' 22
The Investigating Officer 22
Inspection of Localities 24
Equipment of the Investigating Officer p 243 26
The Expert and How to Make Use of Him 26
Impact at the Time 31
Impact Today 32
Contribution to Current Practice 32
Concluding Remarks 33
Key Takeaways 33
Notes 34
Bibliography 34
2 The Exchange Principle 37
Name of the Publication 38
Introduction 38
Biography of the Publication 39
Biography of the Author 40
Key Publications 42
Motivation for Writing 42
Contexts 42
Scientific/Technical 42
Historical 44
Social/Society 44
Structure of the Publication 45
Impact at the Time 48
Impact Today 48
Contribution to Current Practice 48
Concluding Remarks 49
Key Takeaways 49
Notes 49
Bibliography 49
3 The Ontogeny of Criminalistics - Questions and an Agenda 51
Name of the Publication 51
Introduction 52
Biography of the Publication 53
Professional Biography of the Author 53
Volmer and Kirk Establishing Criminalistics at UC Berkeley 53
Kirk's War Years 1942-1945 54
Ultramicroanalysis 54
UC Berkeley Criminology/Criminalistics 54
Kirk's First Book 55
Famous Case 56
Kirk Awards 56
Other Publications 57
Contexts 57
History 57
Science 58
Society 59
Structure and Relevant Contents 59
Introduction 59
Structure 60
Profession? 61
A Science? 62
Impact at the Time 63
Impact Now 64
Development Agenda and Need for Basic Theory 64
Create University-Level Courses in Forensic Science 64
Coordinated Research Effort/Agenda 64
Probabilistic Interpretation 64
Common Terminology 65
A Profession? 65
The Science of Individualisation 66
The Generalist 69
The Search for Fundamental Principles 70
Contribution to Current Practice 70
Concluding Remarks 71
Key Takeaways 72
Notes 72
Bibliography 73
4 DNA 'Fingerprinting'- Putting the Science in Forensic Science 77
Name of the Publication 78
Introduction 78
The Science 78
Terminology 79
The Publication 81
Biography of the Publication 84
Professional Biography of the Author 85
Contexts 86
Scientific 86
Historical 87
Social 87
Structure of the Publication 88
Introduction 88
Isolation of minisatellites 89
Highly polymorphic minisatellites 89
A ¿¿¿[chi] sequence in minisatellites? 89
Probe for hypervariable regions 89
Pedigree analysis 90
A new mutant allele 90
Conclusions 90
Impact at the Time 90
Impact Today 94
Current Technological Progress 96
National DNA Databases 97
Wrongful Convictions 97
Increased Sensitivity, an Issue 97
Contribution to Current Practice 98
Concluding Remarks 99
Key Takeaways 99
Notes 100
Bibliography 101
5 Statistical Evidence and Fallacies 103
Name of the Publication 104
Introduction 104
Terms, Definitions and Explanations 105
The Prosecutor's Fallacy 111
The Defence Attorney's Fallacy 111
Final Comments 112
Summary 112
Motivation for Writing 112
Biography of the Publication 113
Professional Biography of the Authors 113
William C. Thompson 113
Edward L. Schumann 114
Contexts 115
Science, Statistics and Psychology 115
History 115
Structure of the Publication and Relevant Contents 115
General Structure 115
Introduction 117
Experiment 1 119
Experiment 2 121
Discussion and Conclusion 121
Impact at the Time 122
Impact Today 122
Contribution to Current Practice 123
Concluding Remarks 123
Key Takeaways 124
Notes 124
Bibliography 125
6 Interpreting Evidence - The Likelihood Ratio 127
Name of the Publication 127
Introduction 127
Biography of the Publication 130
Professional Biography of the Authors 130
Contexts 131
Structure of the Publication and Relevant Contents 131
Chapter 1 Introduction 132
Chapter 2 Interpreting Scientific Evidence 132
Chapter 3 The Alternative Hypothesis 135
Chapter 4 Explaining the Strength of the Evidence 137
Chapter 5 The Case as a Whole 139
Chapter 6 Errors in Thinking 140
Chapter 7 Classical Statistics and Database Matching 141
Chapters 8-10 141
Chapter 11 Implications for the Legal System 142
Impact at the Time 142
Impact Today 143
Contribution to Current Practice 143
Concluding Remarks 144
Key Takeaways 144
Notes 145
Bibliography 145
7 ISO/IEC 17025:1999 - Demonstrating Competence and Validity 147
Name of the Publication 147
Introduction 147
Biography of the Publication 150
Professional Biography of the Authors 151
Contexts 152
Scientific 152
Historical 153
Social/Society 159
Structure of the Publication 159
Quality Standards Framework - Continuous Improvement 160
Impact at the Time 161
A US Alternative - ASCLD/LAB 162
Impact Today 164
Contribution to Current Practice 165
Concluding Remarks 165
Notes 167
Bibliography 167
8 Observer Effects - Cognitive Bias 171
Name of Publication 171
Introduction 172
Part 1 General Observer Effects 173
Part 2 Observer Effects in Forensic Science 174
Part 3 Minimising Observer Effects in Forensic Science 176
Part 4 Observer Effects and Admissibility Under FRE 702 179
Biography of the Publication 179
Professional Biography of the Authors 182
D. Michael Risinger 182
Michael J. Saks 182
William C. Thompson 183
Robert Rosenthal (1933-2024) 183
Contexts 184
General 184
Scientific 185
Historical 187
Social/Society 188
Structure of the Publication 188
Impact at the Time 189
Impact Today 189
Contribution to Current Practice 190
Concluding Remarks 191
Key Takeaways 191
Notes 192
Bibliography 193
9 The 2009 NAS Report - Strengthening Forensic Science 197
Name of the Publication 197
Introduction 197
Summary 199
Motivation for Writing 199
Terms 200
Biography of the Publication 201
Professional Biography of the Authors 201
Contexts 202
Scientific 202
Historical 203
Social/Society 204
Structure of the Publication 205
205
Appendices 206
Summary 207
Impact at the Time 213
Early Responses from the Disciplines 214
Early US Government Responses 216
Impact Today 224
PCAST (President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology) 224
OSAC and Regulation 226
Miscarriages of Justice 227
Handwriting 227
Artificial Intelligence 228
Other Issues 228
Contribution to Current Practice 229
Recommendation 1 229
Recommendation 2: Standardised Terminology and Reporting 229
Recommendation 3: More and Better Research 230
Recommendation 4 231
Recommendation 5: More Research on Cognitive Bias 231
Recommendation 6: Development of Tools and Procedures 231
Recommendation 7: Accreditation and Certification Mandated 231
Recommendation 8: Quality Control, Assurance and Improvement 232
Recommendation 9: Code of Ethics 232
Recommendation 10: Education and Training 233
Recommendation 12: AFIS interoperability 233
Fingerprints 233
Concluding Remarks 234
Key Takeaways 235
Notes 236
Bibliography 237
10 The Sydney Declaration 241
Name of Publication 242
Introduction to the Chapter 242
Introduction to the Publication 242
Contexts 244
Historical 244
Science 245
Terms and Definitions 247
The Origins of 'Criminology' and 'Criminalistics' 247
Gross Model of Criminology 247
Criminalistics 248
Summary of the Publication 249
Introduction and Definition of Forensic Science 249
Four Principles Governing Forensic Scientific Evidence 250
Summary of Claimed Benefits 251
Next Steps 251
Locard's Traces and Traceology 252
Motivation for Writing 252
The Lausanne School of Thought 252
Progress has been Misfocussed - One Science to Bind Them All 253
Strengths/Weaknesses/Obstacles/Threats 254
Strengths 254
Criticisms and Weaknesses 254
Obstacles 260
Threats 262
Biography of the Publication 265
Professional Biography of the Authors 265
Impact Today 266
Contribution to Current Practice 266
The Way Ahead 267
Separation from a Law Enforcement Culture 267
Police Unlikely to Cede Power 268
Organic Development of Specialisms 269
Budgets 269
The Future 270
Responsibility for the Next Steps 270
Drawing Strands Together, A Model Forensic Science Provider 270
Key Takeaways 271
Notes 273
Bibliography 274
Index 279
Terms, Definitions and Explanations
Introduction
In addition to the specialist, this work is also aimed at the general reader interested in the history of forensic science, so some technical terms are defined and explained in alphabetical order with some context to aid understanding.
Many of these explanations, or parts thereof, are repeated in the main text, but this section will enable the reader to quickly check meanings when necessary.
Bias - Cognitive Bias - Tunnel Vision - Observer Effects
Cognitive bias is an error in thinking. The fundamental premise is that human beings are not independent and objective observers. We tend to come with preconceived ideas, are receptive to information confirming those ideas, and reject information that does not. There is a whole raft of different cognitive biases that contribute to poor decision-making. Tunnel vision and confirmation bias are two (of many) that particularly affect crime investigation and, in turn, forensic science.
Tunnel vision is the tendency to select evidence to build a case to secure a conviction. Confirmation bias tends to favour information that confirms preconceptions independently of the information's accuracy while ignoring conflicting or contradictory evidence.
The main remedy is for all involved, including forensic scientists, to keep an open mind.
Case Assessment and Interpretation
Case assessment and interpretation (CAI) is an approach to decision-making in an operational forensic science organisation based on the principles of Bayesian inference. In practice, it involves assigning likelihood ratios (LR) to candidate evidence types to determine which might deliver the most probative value, saving time and money. CAI engages the forensic scientist at an early stage of a criminal investigation and at the crime scene. The steps are as follows.
- Define customer requirement
- Assess how forensic science can help by assigning LRs to evidence types
- Agree on a forensic examination strategy
- Carry out examinations
- Interpret the results using an LR approach
- Communicate the test results and opinion
CAI is not a rigidly defined process, but it can guide workflow so that time and energy are spent on the issues and items expected to produce the most valuable information.
References to CAI occur throughout the book, with a detailed discussion in Chapter 8.
Chromosome
A chromosome is a package of DNA. The DNA molecule is about two meters long. Getting it to fit into the nucleus of a cell, which is between 5 and 20 millionths of a meter, is a challenge. To achieve that aim, the DNA is coiled and folded to form chromosomes, which compact and organise the DNA molecule within the cell nucleus.
It is important to think of chromosomes as packets or units of DNA. In the nucleus of a human cell, there are 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs, one of which determines sex. One of each pair is either from Mum or Dad.
Common Law and Civil Law
Strictly speaking, science should be the same everywhere. In contrast, legal systems differ and vary by jurisdiction. The major difference is between Common Law and Civil Law.
Common Law relies on an adversarial approach, where two opposing sides present their cases to uncover the truth. In contrast, civil law is inquisitorial or non-adversarial, considering any evidence that might be relevant and gathering all the facts. It is often conducted by a judge. Both systems aim to uncover the truth, and each has its strengths and weaknesses.
Common law is derived from the law of medieval England. In addition to operating in England and Wales, it also operates in former colonies of what was the British Empire, such as Australia, and parts of the United States.
Common law is based on precedent and judicial decisions, i.e. case law, rather than being documented or codified; it is evolutionary and adopts an adversarial approach to weighing evidence, uncovering the truth and delivering justice. In this system, lawyers act for the prosecution. Their role is to present the facts to prove the crime with which a defendant is charged. The prosecutor represents the state, whereas the defence lawyer, or attorney, acts primarily as the protector of the defendant's rights and interests. The evidence is placed before a neutral judge and/or jury, which determines the truth. Perhaps the most important right is to a presumption of innocence, which applies in most jurisdictions. It is important to note in passing that these role differences produce divergent ethical responsibilities.
In the adversarial system, because of the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof usually lies with the prosecution. The defence is not required to prove anything, and the defendant is not required to give or present evidence.
The strength of evidence presented is tested by cross-examination of witnesses of both fact and opinion, and plea bargaining is common.
In the common law/adversarial system, for evidence to be admitted, it must be relevant and probative. Many rules exclude relevant evidence that might not be probative and vice versa. These rules aim to focus the court on the most cogent evidence. In simple terms, the adversarial system excludes evidence that might be considered in the civil law/inquisitorial system.
Despite the lofty claims made for the adversarial system, that it will uncover the truth, it is, in reality, a gladiatorial contest in which both sides want to win, and winning is more important than the truth. In addition, the prosecution often has all the resources of the state at its disposal, creating an uneven contest and far from an 'equality of arms'. These factors can and do contribute to miscarriages of justice.
Civil law is codified, i.e. written down, and has its roots in Roman law and, more recently, the Napoleonic Code of 1804. This system applies in continental Europe, such as the Penal Code in France, and the former colonies of non-British European powers. Civil law has an inquisitorial approach. In contrast with the adversarial system, which has many rules that exclude certain types of evidence, an inquisitorial system is inclusive and considers all evidence that might be relevant. The inquiry is often led by a judge who establishes the facts based on the evidence. Experts are usually appointed by the court and are expected to act impartially, assisting the court to understand complex issues. As such, they are usually not subject to cross-examination, a key element in the adversarial system. In addition, Plea bargaining is rare.
Criminology and Criminalistics
Providing concise and simple definitions or explanations of these terms acceptable to all academics and practitioners, even today, would be a challenge. The distinctions have been and remain quite fluid. There is a section of Chapter 10 devoted to a discussion of these terms and their history.
While inconsistencies in meaning in the same language add to the confusion, translations have not helped. The German 'kriminalistik' and the French 'criminalistique' are often translated into English as 'criminology'.
When this story starts back in the nineteenth century, those who considered themselves criminologists were mostly engaged in trying to identify the criminal type through physical characteristics (criminal anthropology) so that, once identified, measures could be taken to protect society from crime.
Today, criminology is a broad interdisciplinary field encompassing all aspects of crime: its causes, criminal behaviour and its punishment (penology), legislation, law enforcement, the criminal justice system and society's response to crime. It is a subject founded on the social sciences rather than the natural and life sciences such as chemistry, physics and biology.
Criminalistics might be defined as the recognition, examination and interpretation of physical evidence utilising the natural and life sciences. However, for Edmond Locard, 'criminalistique' seems to have meant, more broadly, the scientific investigation of crime.
Applying the term criminalistics to a discipline somewhat akin to what is generally understood to be forensic science began in California in the 1940s. It was borrowed from European sources, where in some quarters it had the same meaning as criminology. It was used to distinguish those applying the natural and life sciences to the investigation of crime, criminalists, from criminologists. The term criminalistics, having been 'born' in California, has largely remained there.
Fallacy
A fallacy is an error in reasoning that results in poor decision-making. Two fallacies relevant to forensic science are the prosecutor's and defender's fallacies, which are the subject of Chapter 5. Respectively, these fallacies risk unfairly strengthening the prosecution or defence case.
Forensic Science and Terminological Ambiguity
Ambiguity extends to the meaning of 'forensic science' itself, which remains contested. Some seem to think it cannot be defined, only described (Fraser 2020). Others consider forensic science to be the science of the trace or 'traceology' (Margot 2011; Roux et al. 2021), and some more prosaically consider forensic science as science in the service of the law and justice (Doyle 2019). Many others take the far more utilitarian view that forensic science is any science that might be applied to the resolution of legal disputes. This understanding aligns with the broad view expressed in the...
