Chain of Evidence

Course manual 2019/2020

Course content

During the course Chain of Evidence the students will revisit the forensic process but from a practical point of view. The learning activities are focussed on the evaluation of the laboratory work, the role of the expert witness, the communication of scientific results and the use of statistics. The students will receive exhibits potentially containing scientific/physical evidence coming from a mock crime scene. After pre-assessing the case, the students will design an examination strategy. The students will perform the trace recovery in the laboratory in teams of 3-4 students. After the traces are secured, they are send to the forensic lab for analysis. Once the results are received the student will interpret the results and write a report or “expert” opinion. The course will be concluded with a moot court session during which the students will be questioned about the scientific evidence and their written “expert” opinion.

All teams will deal with biological and non-biological traces, and all students are expected to contribute to the examination of the evidence, writing the expert report and prepare themselves for the moot court.

Study materials

Literature

• There is no single course text because the nature of the course.

  The following references may be useful to the student at different stages of the course.

  • Course text and articles

   

  General Criminalistics

   

  • Cook R, Evett IW, Jackson G, Jones PJ, Lambert JA. A model for case assessment and interpretation. Sci. Justice 1998; 38: 151-156.
  • Jackson G et al. The nature of forensic science opinion- a possible framework to guide thinking and practice investigators and in court proceedings. Sci. Justice 2006; 46: 33-44.

   

  Forensic interpretation of glass evidence

   

  • SA Coulson, JS Buckleton, AB Gummer, CM Triggs. Glass on clothing and shoes of members of the general population and people suspected of breaking crimes. Sci. Justice 2001; 41: 39-48. 

  • T Hicks, R Vanina, P Margot. Transfer and persistence of glass fragments on garments. Sci. Justice 1996; 38: 101-107. 

  • Gary Napier, Agostino Nobile, Tereza Neocleous, An online application for the classification and evidence evaluation of forensic glass fragments, Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, Volume 146, 15 August 2015, Pages 418-425.
  • IW Evett, JA Lambert, JS Buckleton. Further observations on glass evidence interpretation. Sci. Justice 1995; 35: 283-289. 

  • KAJ Walsh, JS Buckleton, CM Triggs. A practical example of the interpretation of glass evidence. Sci. Justice 1996; 36: 213-218. 

  • JM Curran, CM Triggs, JS Buckleton, KAJ Walsh, T Hicks. Assessing transfer probabilities in a Bayesian interpretation of forensic glass evidence Sci. Justice 1998; 38: 15-21. 


   

  Forensic interpretation of DNA evidence

   

  • IW Evett, BS Weir. Interpretating DNA evidence: statistical genetics for the forensic scientist. Sinauer Associates, 1998 Chapter 2
  • M Sjerps, AD Kloosterman. Statistical aspects of interpreting DNA profiling in legal cases StatisticaNeerlandica (2003) Vol. 57, nr. 3, pp. 368–389
  • W. Evett, G. Jackson, J.A. Lambert, S. McCrossan, The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements, Sci. Justice 2000, 40: 233-239.
  • P Gill , CH Brenner, JS Buckleton, A Carracedo, M Krawczak, WR Mayr, N Morling, M Prinz, PM Schneider, BS Weir. DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures Forensic Sci. Int. 2006, 160: 90-101
  • Peter Gill, Hinda Haned, Oyvind Bleka, Oskar Hansson, Guro Dørum, Thore Egeland, Genotyping and interpretation of STR-DNA: Low-template, mixtures and database matches—Twenty years of research and development, Forensic Science International: Genetics, Volume 18, September 2015, Pages 100-117
  • Gittelson, S., Kalafut, T., Myers, S., Taylor, D., Hicks, T., Taroni, F., Evett, I. W., Bright, J.-A. and Buckleton, J. (2016), A Practical Guide for the Formulation of Propositions in the Bayesian Approach to DNA Evidence Interpretation in an Adversarial Environment. J Forensic Sci, 61: 186–195.
  • M. Clayton, J.P. Whitaker, R.L. Sparkes, P. Gill Analysis and intepretation of mixed forensic stains using DNA STR profiling Forensic Sci. Int., 91 (1998), pp. 55–70

   

  General References

  • Langford A, et al. Practical Skills in Forensic Science. (2e) London: Prentice Hall, 2010 (ISBN 9780132391436)
  • Russey WE, Ebel HF, Bliefert C. How to write a successful science thesis. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 2006

  Other key papers may be used. If Available, the manuals that are provided with the analytical tools need to be studied.  In both cases, a link/reference will be available through the library, Canvas, or handed out during the meetings.

   

  Other references

  • 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, BlackBoard, or handed out during the meetings.

   

Objectives

• 1. Evaluate the scientific evidence in a (mock) case: Pre-assess the expected value of the evidence within a set of circumstances; Formulate competing propositions, relevant given the description of the mock case; Critically establish an examination strategy; Analyse the scientific evidence (DNA and Glass); Evaluate the weight of the evidence (source and activity level)
• 2. Describe the methods used during the examinations and explain the scientific basis of those methods.
• 3. Create a casefile to record all critical steps and decisions, in compliance with guidelines and best practices within the framework of the criminal justice system.
• 4. Create written (forensic report) and formulate verbal statements (moot court interview) to record and communicate the results and interpretation of the scientific evidence of a mock case, in compliance with guidelines and best practices within the framework of the criminal justice system
• The relative weight of each of these learning outcomes in this course is approximately 20%, 40% and 40%, respectively.

Teaching methods

Lab, lectures and tutorials. There is only one lab where “the students will receive exhibits potentially containing scientific/physical evidence coming from a mock crime scene” (see “inhoud" or "contents”). These activities are not evaluated or assessed.

Learning activities

Attendance

Additional requirements for this course:

It is presupposed that all students will be present in class. The moot court training may not be missed.

Assessment

Products

At the end of the course, the following products will be available per team:

• Case pre-assessment & Research plan – must be approved before practical
• Chain Challenge assignment presentation
• Written Exam -this is an individual product
• Complete Case file including: submission forms, case pre-assessment, research plan, chain of custody, communication log, observation sheets, results, and two case reports (one single digital written testimony) (draft: before Moot Court Training session and final: before moor court Exam see Canvas for deadline dates). The files should be submitted on Canvas. In addition, the case reports will be defended in a moot court session at the end of the course. All students will prepare for the moot court.

Case Pre-assessment and Research Plan
The teams will prepare a presentation for their case pre-assessment and research plan on the given dates. The presentation will be in power point and consisting of two slides (max 5 min).  The presentation is not graded. The teams will present their research plan& forms to the coordinator for approval before starting the trace recovery practical.

Chain Challenge Assignment
The chain challenge is a creative team assignment for which the students will place knowledge into context and as such, it is related to all three learning outcomes equally. The teams should manage the time internally (expected investment is around 16 hours per person) and keep a log of activities. Each team will receive a description and/or image of an exhibit and its relation to the mock crime scene case. They will then create a product, in which all possible conceptual connections are shown that the team can make within the framework of forensic science. Whatever the form of the product it should not take the receiver (learner) of this information more than 15min to experience it.

Written Exam
The exam is designed to individually assess the theoretical and practical aspects related to the learning outcomes 1 (20%), 2 (40%) and 3 (40%).

The final examination / Case file /Mootcourt

The case file of the mock crime is the core of this course. Each team will receive information about the case in the form of an investigation request. At the beginning, they will be guided through the selection and securing of the evidence and some presumptive/confirmatory testing, then they will be involved in the reporting the results within the framework of the criminal justice system. There will be two reports/written testimonies: one for biological traces/DNA and one for the other type of traces. After the delivery of the written testimonies the teams will have the opportunity to be questioned as in the moot court by the instructors and receive feedback from them and their peers. Good argumentation in every decision making step, reference to the quality system used, recognition of possible fallacies, anticipation of the reaction of the defense lawyer or the counter expert and behavior in the court are some of the aspects that will be practiced during the training sessions. The teams may improve their reports based on the feedback received. See at the end of this syllabus the details of the report. Consult your instructor timely if in doubt. The information about the cases can be found on Canvas.

 
The calculation of the final grade

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. Only the written examination can be taken again.

The final grade will be announced at the latest on June 22 (= 15 working days after the final course activity). Between June 22nd 2020 to July 20th (=35 working days after the final course activity) a post-exam discussion or inspection moment will be planned. This will be announced on Canvas and/or via email.

The following scheme shows the weight of each product on the final grade

1. Chain Challenge 10 %
2. Exam 30 %
3. Moot court report 30%
4. Moot court defense (correctness, clarity, attitude) 30%

The chain challenge is a team assignment for which the students working in teams will place knowledge into (forensic) context and will communicate this integration process, that is, the relation with existing knowledge. The assessment of this assignment is based on content (60%), structure (20%) and form (20%).

The mootcourt report will be assessed based on completeness (all sections described during the course must be present, 20%), correctness (argumentation and scientific foundation, 40%), and readability (clarity, flow and structure, 40%). The mootcourt defence will be assessed based on correctness (argumentation and scientific content, 60%), clarity (target audience, english/scientific language use, 30%) and attitude (technique, 10%). The grade assigned for the mootcourt defence is the result from the discussion among all the members of the court and at least one of the main instructors.

Only the written exam is individually graded. For the other components the numerical grade given by the instructor will be equally weighted with that given by peer review (team) and self- assessment (member of that team), with the instructor’s grade being the maximum grade possible (for example, instructor 6, peer review 6, self assessment 4, average 5.3).

Table of specification

Table 1: Table of specification: the relation between the learning outcomes of the course, the assessment components of the course and the exit qualifications of the Master’s Forensic Science

Assignments

Chain Challenge
Description: Your team will receive a description and/or image of an object and its relation to the mock crime scene. You should create a "product". This product will show all possible conceptual connections that you can make, within the framework of forensic science. Whatever the form of your product, it should not take the receiver of the information more than 15min to experience it. You should manage your time (expected investment is around 16 hours per person) and keep a log of activities. You can choose your target audience (laymen / expert).
Assessment Form  Please check these rubrics on Canvas before you start your project. Each of these will be graded based on a scale of 0 (lowest) to 1 (highest).

MOOT COURT REPORT
Description:The reports or written testimonies are part of the case file of the moot court case. There will be two reports: one for biological traces/DNA and one for the other traces (one single digital file).1 The report should contain all of the sections given below; don't forget to number the pages. The assessment of the report is based on the assessment form given also below. The readability of the report is included in this scheme and it is a heavy factor. If you have any doubts consult with the coordinators for more information.

Content of reports:
Sections of written report (expectations are given next to the section’s name)
Front Page: team number, team member names, title, date, etc

Sample/ Items ’s description: labels, shape, conditions, Chain of Custody etc

Additional Information: case information, references to other reports, etc
Question/hypotheses formulation: completeness, correct level, etc
Analysis/method description: simplicity, correctness, references, etc
Results: organization, relevance, clarity, correctness, etc
Discussion/Interpretation: argumentation, clarity, scientific foundation, etc
Conclusions: should respond the question and give the weight the evidence
Recommendations: reflective step of the examinations.

Assessment Form Mootcourt Report:The mootcourt report will be assessed based on completeness (all sections requested must be present, Structure 10%), correctness (methods & results, statistics, argumentation and critical thinking, 50%), and readability (appropriate target audience, figures & tables, academic writing, clarity research question, 40%).

MOOT COURT DEFENSE
Description: During the moot court, the teams will be questioned about their written testimonies. Among others, some of the aspects that will be addressed are good argumentation in the decision-making steps and behavior in the court.

Assessment Form: The mootcourt defence will assess correctness (argumentation and scientific content, 60%), clarity (target audience, english language use, 30%) and attitude (technique, 10%).

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

Timetable

The schedule for this course is published on DataNose.

Last year's course evaluation

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.

Contact information

Coordinator

• dr. Maarten Blom