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 criminal justice system and universities. However, when the
routine breaks down, such as in 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 an intense societal
and political discussion? What if the media start scrutinizing your research? What do you do when
you find yourself facing an ethical dilemma? And, what if current policies are at odds with wishes
and demands from the forensic sciences? Questions like these are at the heart of the course Policy,
Ethics and Media (PEM). Granted, PEM 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 it also will help you to understand the perspectives of stakeholders. In short, PEM
invites 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 different ways 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 valuable tools and concepts for
reflection on the forensic profession.
In addition, PEM seeks to expand on professional skills and competences, such as teamwork, and
writing and presentation skills. 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.
see Canvas
The course consists of lectures and tutorials. 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 so-called ‘CARQ’. This approach is particularly useful for
students who are not (yet) used to reading social sciences and humanities texts. Following the CARQ,
you will look for:
• 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 classroom discussions. 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 (see below
under 2.1).
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% Group Final Report | 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 Group Report (10%)
The final grade will be announced at the latest on July 21st (= 15 working days after the final course
activity). Between July 21st o August 18th (= 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.
Table of specification
| 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 | x | |||||||||
| 2 | 2, 3 | x | x | ||||||||
| 3 | 2, 3 | x | |||||||||
| 4 | 2, 3 | x | |||||||||
| 5 | 2, 3 | x | 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)
The assessment of this course consists of three components:
1. Final examination
The exam of this course will be a written open book exam, based on the content covered during the course. The final exam will be assessed on an individual basis and aims to test your ability to apply the knowledge you gained (i.e. theoretical concepts we discussed in PEM) to concrete cases and examples.
2 Criminal case report
The second component consists of a group report in which you will apply concepts of this course to a controversial criminal case. 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.
To this end, you will write a report consisting of eight chapters, each dedicated to different concepts, on the case your group has selected. The case studies used in this course are described below. A separate document “report guide”, provided on Canvas, provides additional detailed information.
3. Criminal case report group presentation
You will hold a presentation of the aforementioned report, which aims to stimulate discussion among your peers, as aspiring reflective forensic practitioners.
Case 1: The Teresa Halbach murder
Steven Avery gained worldwide renown after a Netflix true crime documentary called Making a
Murderer, which 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.
Sources:
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
https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/editing-the-making-a-murderer-effect6
Case 2: The Meredith Kercher murder
In 2007 Meredith Kercher, a British student on exchange, was murdered in Perugia (Italy) at the age
of 21. Amanda Knox, a fellow exchange student who shared her apartment was convicted for her
murder. Knox was eventually acquitted by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation in 2015, after
having spent almost four years in Italian prison. The case is viewed as controversial from several
standpoints, including the questionable role of the media.
Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-14978755
Case 3: De Deventer moordzaak (Dutch-speaking students only)
The Deventer murder case revolves around the murder of widow Jacqueline Wittenberg in 1999. Her financial advisor Ernst Louwes was initially exonarated but eventually convicted in appeal. What followed was a complex and controversial forensic and legal battle, that gained immense attention in media and politics, that is still palpable to this day.
Source: https://nos.nl/artikel/2396143-deventer-moordzaak-verfilmd-fake-news-avant-la-lettre
Case 4: The staircase
The final option concerns the death of Kathleen Peterson, who was found in a bloody heap at the
bottom of the stairs at her home in Durham, North Carolina, on the night of 9 December 2001. Her
husband, writer Michael Peterson was charged with her murder. The death and subsequent trial and
conviction of Michael Peterson, was subject of the documentary The Staircase, which we briefly
watched during the first workshop of the course Professional Development. It includes multiple
branches of forensic sciences and many different theories exist about what happened to Kathleen
Peters: was this indeed a murder or an accident? There are even different theories about how the
accident might have occurred, that gained widespread media attention. In 2022 even a series was launched by a popular streaming service.
Source:
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/jun/05/the-staircase-netflix-true-crime-series-
documentary-michael-peterson
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.
Fraud & Plagiarism: General UvA rules apply (http://student.uva.nl/fs/az/item/plagiarism-and-fraud.html).
All assignments will be checked on plagiarism. When blocks of text are found to be copied without proper references, the exam committee will be notified. Suspicion of fraud during the exam will be send to the examination committee. Examination committee is able to terminate your participation in the master course.
Followed the courses of the master program year 1 of Forensic sciences (UvA) or Management Policy Analysis and entrepreneurship in health and life sciences (VU-MPA)
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=17 | |
Strengths
|
Notes for improvement
|
|
Response lecturer:
|
||