6 EC
Semester 2, period 6
5274POEM6Y
| Owner | Master Forensic Science |
| Coordinator | Virgil Rerimassie |
| Part of | Master Forensic Science, year 1 |
Forensic scientists do not work in isolation from the world. Even though forensic laboratories may at
times seem like places that are far remote from public life, forensic science is connected to various
other social environments, such as the research sciences or to the legal system. However, when the
routine breaks down, such as in times of controversy or disagreement, the forensics can take centre
stage in public attention. The critical questioning of forensic evidence by lawyers and defendants
may then quickly extend to include crime reporters, media pundits, researchers, civil servants, or
politicians. Moreover, all of these different actors may have different views about what is right or
wrong. About what is morally just. What if your work becomes part of a societal and political
discussion? What if the media are scrutinizing your research? What if current policies are at odds
with wishes and demands from the forensic sciences? Granted, this course will not provide the
answers to these difficult questions. However, it will provide tools to better understand the wider
societal context in which you will be working and help to understand the perspectives of relevant
stakeholders. In doing so it will help to place your work as a forensic scientist in this wider societal
context. In short, we invite you to step outside of the laboratory and look at the forensic sciences
from different perspectives.
The course analyses how forensic science assesses the solidity of facts, in the context of major social
institutions in society, such as science, the law, government, and the media. Each of these
institutions has its own way of assessing facts and we will analyse how these interact in the practice
of forensic scientists. Some controversial criminal cases will be used as a window onto the
assessment of facts, showing us connections and influences. In order to do this, we will draw from
the social sciences and humanities, which provide us with tools and concepts for reflection on the
forensic profession.
This course also covers some basic elements of the various human dimensions encountered by the
forensic scientist. This requires an active approach of the students. It incorporates practical,
interactive, individual and group assignments in order to enable the students to acquire skills and
insights about multidisciplinary project team dynamics, one-on-one interaction, conflict resolution
and learning styles.
The list of compulsory and voluntary literature can be found on Canvas
The course consists of lectures and tutorials(or, work groups). In general, a topic will start you studying
the reading material posted on Canvas. The topic is reinforced with a lecture. Furthermore, during
tutorials we will go deeper into the literature and theoretical concepts, also by means of specific
examples from the field and through (practical) exercises. To help us get a deeper understanding of
the compulsory literature used in this course we use the ‘CARQ method’. This is a well-known method
to discuss a scientific article, and contains a:
• Core quotation (a phrase or sentence of the article that according to you presents the key
message of the whole article), accompanied with the;
• Argumentative structure of the article or chapter to illumine this quotation; a discussion of;
• Relations the article has (with what you know from other contexts, with other texts discussed
in the course, et cetera). Finally, present fellow students with;
• Questions that are formulated in such fashion as to stimulate discussion.
The CARQ method provides a fruitful way to structure our discussion. In addition, the students should
cover the weekly reading assignments and will use the discussion board on Canvas to bring important
issues, difficult concepts, and their questions or remarks on the literature. In addition, during the
tutorials we will reflect and work on the reports you will be drafting.
Activity | Hours | |
Hoorcollege | 12 | |
Presentatie | 4 | |
Tentamen | 2 | |
Werkcollege | 12 | |
Self study | 138 | |
Total | 168 | (6 EC x 28 uur) |
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 lectures and tutorials. Tutorials are compulsory.
If you miss one tutorial you will have to make a replacement assignment. Missing two or more
tutorials will automatically result in the loss of credit for the practical/tutorial part of the course.
| Item and weight | Details |
|
Final grade | |
|
50% Tentamen | Must be ≥ 5.5, Mandatory |
|
40% Research reports | Must be ≥ 5.5, Mandatory |
|
10% Presentation Group Report | Must be ≥ 5.5, Mandatory |
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. Exam (50%)
2. Group Report (40%)
3. Presentation (10%)
The final grade will be announced at the latest on July 18th (= 15 working days after the final course
activity). Between July 18th to August 15th (= 35 working days after the final course activity) a postexam discussion or inspection moment will be planned. This will be announced on Canvas and/or via email.
| LO | Tested in component | EQ 1 | EQ 2 | EQ 3 | EQ 4 | EQ 5 | EQ 6 | EQ 7 | EQ 8 | EQ 9 | EQ 10 |
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 2 | 2, | x | x | ||||||||
| 3 | 2, | ||||||||||
| 4 | 2, | x | |||||||||
| 5 | 2, | 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)
Component 1. The Final Examination
The exam of this course will be a written examination based on the content covered during the
course. The final exam will be assessed on an individual basis. The exam is designed to assess the
theoretical and practical aspects related to the learning outcomes.
Component 2. Group report and presentation
The second component consists of a group report in which you will apply concepts of this course to a
controversial case. In addition, you will hold a presentation of the report. Working in groups, your
assignment is to ‘re-tell’ the case through the different lenses, or in other words, describe the case
as interdisciplinary researchers. For this, as a group you will write eight chapters on the case your
group has selected. The case studies used in this course are described below. During the course you
will work together with your team on a case of your choice, provided that there is an equal balanced
of students over the different cases. A separate document “report guide”, provided on Canvas,
provides additional detailed information.
Case 1: “De Puttense Moordzaak” (Dutch-speaking students only)
On 8 January 1994, the 23-year old stewardess Christel Ambrosius had been raped and murdered in
Putten, a town northeast of Amersfoort. One year later, two men were convicted for the murder and
sentenced to ten years. The two men had confessed, but later claimed they had been forced to do
so. Sperm and two hairs found at the scene did not belong to the men, but this was not considered
sufficient evidence to show the innocence of the two men. After an extensive controversy and a
reopening of the trial, the two men were acquitted in 2002, after they had spent two-thirds of their
sentence in jail. The case involves a wide range of actors, including the media, Parliament, forensic
experts, or (ex-) policemen and leads to critical questions about the value and interpretation of
expert evidence.
Suggested literature:
“Dossier Puttense moordzaak”, http://nos.nl/artikel/312199-de-puttense- moordzaak.html
Vragen van het lid Dittrich (D66) aan de minister van Justitie over de zogenaamde Puttense
moordzaak. (Ingezonden 17 november 1999).
Mac van Dinther, “Puttense moordzaak blijft bizar juridisch steekspel”, Volkskrant, 8 Dec
2001, p. 2: http://www.volkskrant.nl/archief/puttense-moordzaak-blijft-bizar- juridischsteekspel~a591648/
Uitspraak Gerechtshof, AE1889, Gerechtshof Arnhem, 03-10-95
Case 2: “The Lundy murders”
On 29/30 August of 2000, 38-year old Christine Lundy and her 7-year-old daughter Amber were
murdered in Palmerston North, New Zealand. Christine’s husband Mark Lundy (then age 43) was
arrested and charged with the murders in February 2001 and convicted after a six-week trial in
2002. Lundy maintained he was innocent and took his case to the Court of Appeal where it was
rejected and his sentence was increased. However, a retrial was ordered for in 2013 by the Privy
Council in Britain because of problems with the reliability of evidence surrounding the time of death,
the accuracy of the testing of brain tissue given the state of the samples (in which the NFI was
involved) and an alternative explanation for the alleged tampering of the family computer. However,
Lundy was found guilty again at the retrial in 2015, despite persistent problematic issues concerning
the evidence and time line. The case was highly mediatized, and it is probable that personal
characterizations of Mark Lundy have influenced the outcome of the trials.
Suggested literature:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lundy_murders
The Dominion Post (Wellington, New Zealand), “Was Lundy praying for the right pose?” April
4, 2015, p. 2.
Waikato Times (Hamilton, New Zealand), “Kos: Jury should not drown ‘in sea of science’”
April 16, 2015, p. 5
Case 3: “The OJ Simpson case”
One of the most publicised trials of recent decades is the case of US football star OJ Simpson,
accused of murdering his ex-wife and her friend in 1994. During the criminal trial, covered
extensively in the media, the defence successfully undermined the forensic evidence against
Simpson, leading the jury to find him not guilty. In 1997, a civil case found Simpson liable for
wrongful death. Apart from the involvement of the media, the case offers well-documented
complications with forensic expertise, involving the status of DNA analysis and the chain of custody
of forensic evidence.
Suggested Literature:
Rachel Nowak. 1994. “Forensic DNA goes to court with OJ.” Science (265).
Elainne Lafferty. 1997. “The inside story of how OJ lost.” Time magazine.
Jasanoff (1998) The Eye of Everyman
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Dardenca, (closing arguments II
prosecuter, check www)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/cochranclose.html (closing
arguments defence attorney)
Case 4: “The Teresa Halbach murder”
Steven Avery gained worldwide popularity after a Netflix true crime documentary called Making a
Murderer debuted in December of 2015. The Steven Avery story was convicted of a crime for which
he again proclaimed his innocence: the murder of Teresa Halbach. Photographer Teresa Halbach disappeared on October 31, 2005; her last known appointment was a meeting with Steven
Avery at his home on the grounds of Avery's Auto Salvage. On the 11th of November 2005, Avery was
arrested and charged with Halbach's murder, kidnapping, sexual assault, and mutilation of a corpse.
To this date, Avery maintains that the murder charge was a frameup, promulgated to discredit his
then pending wrongful-conviction civil case. The Netflix original documentary series Making a
Murderer also covers the arrest and 2007 conviction of Avery's nephew, Brendan Dassey. Extensive
media attention on both cases still arise from time to time, in which the controversies surrounding
the Halbach murder are put under a spotlight.
Suggested literature:
Wilson, S. R., & Tolley, L. (2016). The "Making a Murderer" Case: A Brief Description on How
EDTA Is Measured in Blood. Frontiers in chemistry, 4, 41. doi:10.3389/fchem.2016.00041
(Dutch) https://nos.nl/artikel/2256256-making-a-murderer-is-geen-realiteit-dat-moet-dekijker-beseffen.html
(English) https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/editing-the-making-a-murderer-effect
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
| Weeknummer | Onderwerpen | Studiestof |
| 1 | ||
| 2 | ||
| 3 | ||
| 4 |
The schedule for this course is published on DataNose.
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.
| Policy, Ethics and Media (6EC) | N=33 | |
Strengths
|
Notes for improvement
|
|
Response lecturer:
|
||