Course manual 2019/2020

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

Book: 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.

Selected Chapters (indicated in Canvas) from: ARW Jackson, JM Jackson. Forensic Science (3ed) Pearson: 2011. (9780273738404). This book can be accessed digitally through the UVA librabry
- 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. Evaluate 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
Fieldwork/excursion

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
Excursie	20
Hoorcollege	14
Tentamen	3
Werkcollege	30
Self study	101
Total	168	(6 EC x 28 uur)

Attendance

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% Presentation (Group)	Must be ≥ 5.5, Mandatory
30% Individual assignments and discussions combined	Must be ≥ 5.5, Mandatory
1 (25%) Assigment week 1
1 (25%) Hand in exercise
1 (25%) individual assigment Transfer Evidence
1 (25%) Uniqueness

Components:
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%)
Every week there is a discussion topic or an assignment and every student is expected to participate.
3. Final exam (60%)

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

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 final grade will be announced at the latest 15 working days after the final course activity. Between this date and 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.

Learning outcome	Components (see above)	EQ1	EQ2	EQ3	EQ4	EQ 5	EQ 6	EQ 7	EQ 8	EQ 9	EQ 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			x			x
7	2,3				x			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. The exam of this module will be on 22nd of October 2019 between 13-16 h and will be a written examination based on the content covered during the lessons.

The exam is designed to assess the theoretical and practical aspects related to the learning outcomes 1 to 7 in the following weighting:

Learning Outcome

%

1

5

2

10

3

10

4

30

5

15

6

20

7

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.

Additional information

Basic concepts of chemistry: atoms and compounds.

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.

Criminalistics and Analytical Chemistry (5 EC)	N=33
Strengths Overall the course has a positive evaluation on almost every evaluation aspect. The course was a good introduction to the master’s programme. The guest lecturers were highly appreciated, they gave a good perspective on the field of forensics and its different disciplines. The introduction to the Bayesian statistics was appreciated.	Notes for improvement The analytical chemistry part of the course was disappointing for the students, there was only one assignment dedicated to this subject Although the Bayesian statistics reader was positively evaluated, the teaching method of the guest lecturer wasn’t, according to the students. Students experienced his teaching as non-activating and not interactive. The presentation about drug pill databases was not evaluated quite positively. The purpose of the presentation was not clear enough to the students. The rubric helped a lot in terms of the feedback. However, some students mention that the feedback should be more descriptive.
Response programme coordinator / lecturer: Again a good evaluation of this course. Next year, the drug pill assignment will be moved to the new course on digital forensics. The available time will be used to extend the case pre-assessment assignment in order to go more in-depth. The teacher will expand and integrate analytical chemistry techniques here, not by providing a lecture on the techniques but by activating the knowledge already present in the group among students with a chemistry background. Analytical chemistry techniques are also in the course connected to the topics of the different guest lecturers and it is indicated which analytical techniques are associated with the different topics. We will emphasize this by providing a complete overview of which analytical techniques are discussed in which week connected to which guest lecturer, so the analytical chemistry techniques will become more of a main thread throughout the course. The teacher will decrease the overlap in Bayesian statistics between the reading material and the lecture. It is a very good introduction though and students need it further on in the course for example for the glass expert guest lecture. The teacher thinks it is a good idea to provide an explanation about the rubrics at the start of the course.

Contact information

Coordinator

dr. Maarten Blom

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

Learning Outcome	%
1	5
2	10
3	10
4	30
5	15
6	20
7	10

Criminalistics and Analytical Chemistry