Criminalistics and Analytical Chemistry

6 EC

Semester 1, period 1

5274CRAC6Y

Owner Master Forensic Science
Coordinator dr. Maarten Blom
Part of Master Forensic Science, year 1

Course manual 2022/2023

Course content

The course will start with an overview of the basic concepts in forensic science and the essential steps of the forensic process. For practical and didactical reasons, the process has been divided in four phases as could be seen by a forensic scientist; the investigation of the scene of the incident (crime), the analysis, the interpretation and the reporting. Each of the phases in the process will be individually explored using examples from several forensic areas of expertise. These areas of expertise are generally based on specific forensic traces and make use of various methods and techniques that can be roughly divided into two main categories: instrumental measurement based and human observation based. Chemical analysis of paint, glass, explosives, illicit drugs, fire accelerants and documents are examples of the first category. The comparison of fingerprints, handwriting, speech, tool marks and cartridge marks are examples of the latter. Some of the aforementioned areas will be used to illustrate each step of the process as well as the intertwined nature of the complete process. Moreover, evidence interpretation is subject to a paradigm shift: the classical interpretation is being replaced by an interpretation based on a more logical approach and the use of likelihood ratios (also known as Bayesian approach). Therefore, special attention will be given to this issue.

Study materials

Literature

  • Books

    Bernard Robertson, G.A. Vignaux, Charles E.H. Berger. Interpreting evidence : evaluating forensic science in the courtroom. Chichester, West Sussex, UK : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Second edition, 2016. This book can be accessed digitally through the UVA librabry

     

    Selected Chapters (indicated in Canvas) from: ARW Jackson, JM Jackson. Forensic Science (3ed) Pearson: 2011. (9780273738404). 

  • Papers

     

    • A.J. van Es, C.A.J. Klaassen. The Value of Evidence 2015. Reader (introduction to Bayesian reasoning) available on Canvas
    •  Weyermann, Céline, and Claude Roux. “A Different Perspective on the Forensic Science Crisis.” Forensic science international 323 (2021): 110779–110779
    • De Forrest PR. Recapturing the essence of criminalistics. Science and Justice 1999; 39:196-208.
    • Jackson G et al. The Scientists and the Scales of Justice. Science and Justice 2000; 40: 81-5.
    • Inman K, Rudin N. The origin of the evidence. Forensic Sci Intl 2002; 126: 11-6.
    • Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA. A hierarchy of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework. Science & Justice 1998; 38: 231-9.
    • Association of Forensic Science Providers, Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic sci- ence expert opinion. Science and Justice 2009; 49: 161-4.
    • Montani et al. Forensic Science International 2010; 194: 115-124.
    • Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA. A model for case assessment and interpretation. Science & Justice 1998; 38: 151-6.
    • Booth et al. Case assessment and interpretation- application to a drugs supply case. Science and Jus- tice 2002; 42: 123-5.
    • Evett IW et al. More on hierarchy of propositions: exploring the distinctions between explanations and propositions. Science and Justice 2000; 40: 3-10.
    • Jackson G et al. The nature of forensic science opinion- a possible framework to guide thinking and practice investigators and in court proceedings. Science and Justice 2006; 46: 33-44.
    • Cole SA. Forensics without uniqueness, conclusions without individualization: the new epistemology of forensic identification. Law, Probability and Risk 2009; 8: 233−
    • Kaye DH. Identification, individualization and uniqueness: What's the difference? Law, Probability and Risk 2009; 8: 85-94.
    • Bell, Suzanne. Forensic Chemistry. Annual Review of Analytical Chemistry, 2009, Vol.2, p.297-319 (Review)
    • Leenders, Liz. Forensic Evidencing for Green Forensic Studies Stable Isotope Analysis – a review, Literature Thesis UvA https://esc.fnwi.uva.nl/thesis/centraal/files/f257613166.pdf

    Other references

     

    Inman K., Rudin N. Principles and Practice of Criminalistics. The profession of forensic science. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2000. (ISBN 9780849381270)

    Langford A, et al. Practical Skills in Forensic Science. 2nd ed. London: Prentice Hall, 2010. (ISBN 9780132391436)

    Houck MM, Siegel JA. Fundamentals of Forensic Science. London: Academic Press, 2006. (ISBN 9780123567628)

    Russey WE, Ebel HF, Bliefert C. How to write a successful science thesis. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 2006

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1556-4029/homepage/ForAuthors.html (accessed 26/08/14) 

    Other key papers or books may be used. In that case, they will be available through the library, Canvas, or handed out during the meetings.

     

     

     

Objectives

  • 1. Describe parties involved in a forensic process (Prosecution, Defense, Forensic Scientist, Court, Police) and explain their roles.
  • 2. Explain the types of forensic inference (classification, individualisation, identification, association, reconstruction).
  • 3. Explain how forensic traces are generated (pattern transfer, matter transfer, indivisibility of matter) and how information (features) can be extracted from traces.
  • 4. Explain the scientific basis of the analytical techniques most commonly used in the analysis of non-biological traces.
  • 5. Determine the weight of evidence using Likelihood Ratio’s (in a Bayesian framework).
  • 6. Critically review the essential steps in case (pre)-assessment and interpretation for a simple case: (define key issue, create relevant hypotheses, assess (expected) probabilities of outcomes, calculate (expected) weight of evidence), at source and activity level.
  • 7. Recognize and avoid common fallacies in forensic reasoning (Prosecotors’ / Defence fallacy.
  • 8. Apply the criteria used in this study programme to characterise presentations as appropriate for master level.

Teaching methods

  • Lecture
  • Presentation/symposium
  • Self-study

Lectures, tutorials and discussions.

Every week there is lecture, a tutorial and a discussion topic and every student is expected to participate. During the tutorials the topics covered in the lectures will be reinforced with information from real cases while the discussions will be conducted on Canvas. 

Learning activities

Activity

Hours

Presentaties

6

Hoorcollege

20

Tentamen

3

Werkcollege

12

Self study

127

Total

168

(6 EC x 28 uur)

Attendance

This programme does not have requirements concerning attendance (OER part B).

Additional requirements for this course:

It is presupposed that all students will be present in class.

Assessment

Item and weight Details

Final grade

60%

Tentamen

Must be ≥ 5.5, Mandatory

10%

Presentations week 6

Must be ≥ 5.5

30%

Individual assignments and discussions combined

1 (25%)

Assigment Case Pre-assesment Robbery (optional / does not count fot the final grade)

1 (25%)

Hand in exercise Logical reasoning & Bayes (graded assignment)

1 (25%)

individual assigment Transfer Evidence (graded assignment)

1 (25%)

Reading Assigment week 1

All components will be graded on a scale from 1 to 10, with a maximum of one decimal after the point. These grades are used to calculate the final grade. In order to pass the course, all components and the final grade have to be sufficient, i.e. at least a five and a half. When a student has not fulfilled this requirement, the examiner will register the mark ‘did not fulfil all requirements’ (NAV) whether or not the averaged grade is sufficient.

The components will be weighted as follows:

  1. Presentations (group assignment, individually graded; 10%)
    There will be two rounds of presentations (“drug pills” and “strength of the evidence”)
  2. Tutorials/discussions (30%, individual)
    Every week there is a discussion topic or an assignment and every student is expected to participate.
  3. Final exam (60%, individual)

The assignments, the presentation and the exam will be assessed on an individual base.The assignments and exam are designed to assess the theoretical and practical aspects related to the learning outcomes 1 - 8

The final grade will be announced at the latest 15 working days after the final course activity (November 15th). Between this date and 35 working days after the final course activity (December 13th), a post-exam discussion or inspection moment will be planned. This will be announced on Canvas and/or via email.

 

Exit qualifications

Learning outcomes

Components (see above)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1

2, 3

x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

2, 3

 

 

x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

2, 3

 

x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

2, 3

 

x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

2, 3

 

 

x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

2, 3

 

 

x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7

2, 3

 

 

 

 

 

x

 

 

 

 

8

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

x

Table of specification:the relation between the Learning Outcomes (LO) of the course, the assessment components of the course and the Exit Qualifications (EQ) of the Master’s Forensic Science (described in the Introduction in the Course Catalogue)

Assignments

1. The Tutorials/discussions

  • There will be regular discussion topics or an assignment and every student is expected to participate. During the tutorials the topics covered in the lectures will be reinforced with information from real cases while the discussions will be conducted on Canvas. In general, one or more articles will be assigned and the discussion will originate from the list of key issues given with the articles. Consistency in the entire articles and relations among the research question, the chosen method and the conclusions will be often addressed. The deadlines for submission of discussions and assignments are communicated in Canvas.

     

    For every assignment and every discussion there will be a numerical grade given. The possible grades for the tutorials/discussion are given by a conversion of a verbal scale to numerical (not delivered=0, unsatisfactory=4, satisfactory=6, good=8, excellent=10).

2. Presentations

  • There will be two rounds of presentations (“drug pills” and “strength of the evidence”). The presentations will be group assignments, one on feature extraction and comparison (drug pills) and one on case assessment (strength of the evidence) using a case example. Only the second presentation will be graded (on an individual base) for which a standard assessment form will be used.

3. The final examination

  • The final exam will be assessed on an individual base. T

Fraud and plagiarism

The 'Regulations governing fraud and plagiarism for UvA students' applies to this course. This will be monitored carefully. Upon suspicion of fraud or plagiarism the Examinations Board of the programme will be informed. For the 'Regulations governing fraud and plagiarism for UvA students' see: www.student.uva.nl

Course structure

WeeknummerOnderwerpenStudiestof
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Timetable

The schedule for this course is published on DataNose.

Additional information

Basic concepts of chemistry: atoms and compounds.

Last year's student feedback

In order to provide students some insight how we use the feedback of student evaluations to enhance the quality of education, we decided to include the table below in all course guides.

Criminalistics and Analytical Chemistry (6 EC) N=18  
Strengths
  • Guest lectures especially about glass and drugs, Maarten and his enthusiasm.
  • Diversity and build-up of the topics
  • Assignments with the online rubrics
 Notes for improvement
  • Deadline schedule and structure of the course (some assignments had to be completed in less amount of time than others)
  • Lack of theory in some of the lectures (especially in the chemical lecture)
  • Unclear what to expect for the exam, and what students needed to know of which lecture.
Response programme coordinator / lecturer:
  • The start and deadlines of assignments were available at the start of the course. So students did know when assignments would occur. The assignments were made available at specific moments during the course. This is because of the build-up in level during the course. Students first need to do the earlier assignments before they can go to the next. In addition, the assignments indeed differed in the amount of time available, because some assignments simply require more time from the students to do them. The teacher will point out the agenda in Canvas.
  • This comment is a bit puzzling. The guest lectures such as the explosives lecture, have a page titled “preparation for” which contains an introduction on the subject and reading materials on the theory. Students are instructed to prepare this so they have questions for the guest lecturer. Also on the theory of analytical chemistry study material is provided at different levels, so also more in-depth materials for the students with a chemistry background. Students are stimulated to exchange knowledge, e.g. the students with chemistry background can help the students without a chemistry background. They can use the Canvas discussion board to ask questions, but more often WhatsApp is used.
  • Last year was the first time the open book exam was introduced. This year the open book exam was kept, and it was made on campus. This year, the students had last year’s exam as an example and were in that sense better prepared. Otherwise, in terms of instructions and set-up nothing was changed. The teacher therefore did not expect comments on the instructions of the exam.

Contact information

Coordinator

  • dr. Maarten Blom