Marketised forensic DNA-profiling in England & Wales

Previously held under moratorium from 20 March 2020 until 20 March 2022Forensic science provision in the United Kingdom has undergone significant, though uneven, development during the past decade. In England and Wales, forensic expertise is now delivered by way of a commercial market, whilst similar provision in Scotland, and Northern Ireland, remains within the public sector. As a result of marketisation, police forces (and other forensic ‘customers’) have become increasingly concerned with measuring economic value, whilst forensic science providers have been required to maintain an efficient, high-quality service that conforms to the overarching regulations. Early studies suggest that these structural, and regulatory, developments have had a marked impact upon the field of forensic DNA analysis, and may affect the way in which expert DNA evidence is constructed. This empirical research project seeks to assess the impact that these public policy, and organizational, developments, have had on the perspectives of forensic DNA-profiling experts. The project focuses on the perceived links between governance structures and the performance of forensic expertise, through the construction of analytical, and evaluative, reports. The study also considers the reported impacts of overarching regulatory incursions. The purpose of this unique study is to gain a clearer understanding of the ways in which forensic DNA profilers have responded to policy-driven structural changes, and to assess the perceived effects of resulting adaptations. The project has uncovered valuable data, demonstrating that respondents regard DNA reporting and evaluation in relation to serious crime as conforming to the highest scientific standards. However, the ways in which ‘volume’ crime cases are perceived to have been dealt with may raise more pressing questions. Indeed, certain trends are identified within the respondent’s testimony, based upon their experiences of the forensic market, which may raise concerns. Particular developments (such as the perception of case fragmentation and de-skilling, and concerns relating to the production of streamlined reports) could - if accurate - impact on the quality of expert opinion, and may potentially subvert the courts’ ability to arrive at sound determinations on questions of fact.Forensic science provision in the United Kingdom has undergone significant, though uneven, development during the past decade. In England and Wales, forensic expertise is now delivered by way of a commercial market, whilst similar provision in Scotland, and Northern Ireland, remains within the public sector. As a result of marketisation, police forces (and other forensic ‘customers’) have become increasingly concerned with measuring economic value, whilst forensic science providers have been required to maintain an efficient, high-quality service that conforms to the overarching regulations. Early studies suggest that these structural, and regulatory, developments have had a marked impact upon the field of forensic DNA analysis, and may affect the way in which expert DNA evidence is constructed. This empirical research project seeks to assess the impact that these public policy, and organizational, developments, have had on the perspectives of forensic DNA-profiling experts. The project focuses on the perceived links between governance structures and the performance of forensic expertise, through the construction of analytical, and evaluative, reports. The study also considers the reported impacts of overarching regulatory incursions. The purpose of this unique study is to gain a clearer understanding of the ways in which forensic DNA profilers have responded to policy-driven structural changes, and to assess the perceived effects of resulting adaptations. The project has uncovered valuable data, demonstrating that respondents regard DNA reporting and evaluation in relation to serious crime as conforming to the highest scientific standards. However, the ways in which ‘volume’ crime cases are perceived to have been dealt with may raise more pressing questions. Indeed, certain trends are identified within the respondent’s testimony, based upon their experiences of the forensic market, which may raise concerns. Particular developments (such as the perception of case fragmentation and de-skilling, and concerns relating to the production of streamlined reports) could - if accurate - impact on the quality of expert opinion, and may potentially subvert the courts’ ability to arrive at sound determinations on questions of fact

Recent Advances in Forensic Anthropological Methods and Research

Forensic anthropology, while still relatively in its infancy compared to other forensic science disciplines, adopts a wide array of methods from many disciplines for human skeletal identification in medico-legal and humanitarian contexts. The human skeleton is a dynamic tissue that can withstand the ravages of time given the right environment and may be the only remaining evidence left in a forensic case whether a week or decades old. Improved understanding of the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that modulate skeletal tissues allows researchers and practitioners to improve the accuracy and precision of identification methods ranging from establishing a biological profile such as estimating age-at-death, and population affinity, estimating time-since-death, using isotopes for geolocation of unidentified decedents, radiology for personal identification, histology to assess a live birth, to assessing traumatic injuries and so much more

Copyright Trolls, Defining the Line Between Legal Ransom Letters and Defending Digital Rights: Turning Piracy into a Business Model or Protecting Creative from Internet Lawlessness?, 13 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 170 (2013)

The scarlet letter of the term “troll” has long been affixed to the lapel of businesses within the patent context. This pejorative term, however, has had little relevance or widespread public recognition within the domain of copyright law until 2010. Since the awakening of the “copyright troll,” several non-author rights holders have recently adopted and propagated a substantially modified version of this sue-to-settle paradigm within the context of copyright law while introducing it to the scale of mass-litigation. Further, the amorphous term “copyright troll” traditionally characterizes a business practice of acquiring unenforced copyrights that are being infringed upon through various online media vehicles while monetizing the fundamental disconnect between the current copyright law and Internet users’ behavioral norms. Without typically authoring original works of expression, these businesses seek to extract rapid settlements from a nexus of antiquated intellectual property laws while chilling free speech and disincentivizing innovation. As a result of creative manipulation, both the original policy-backed intentions instilled by the Framers within the 1976 Act and the delicate balance between hyper- and hypo-enforcement have been patently disrupted. Moreover, the ramifications of “troll” litigation tactics have ensnared countless innocent users into costly litigation and settling unwarranted claims to avoid being perpetually associated with the illegal activity of online copyright infringement. As the scope of online copyright infringement continues to exponentially expand, this legal uncertainty acts as a catalyst for those willing to probe the outskirts of the Act. This comment focuses on three specific businesses publicly labeled as “copyright trolls,” details their evolution from hyperlinking to peer-to-peer file-sharing, and analyzes the current state of copyright law in the realm of the digital marketplace

Crime reconstruction and the role of trace materials from crime scene to court

Crime reconstruction takes place in a complex ecosystem and needs to be responsive to the context of each case. For accurate, reproducible and transparent crime reconstructions to take place, a holistic approach is needed that considers the different stakeholders, different types of trace material, integral human decision‐making and interconnected nature of the forensic science process. For robust reconstruction, there needs to be a consideration of both the distinctive types of trace material that can contribute to the reconstruction, and an understanding of the interplay of human decision‐making within reconstruction approaches. In addition, it is also necessary to consider source attribution of a trace material in addition to the activities that led to the generation, identification, transfer, and persistence of the trace. This requires explicit and tacit forms of knowledge, and an incorporation of the inherent uncertainty and risk in the reconstruction approach. The communication of conclusions reached in a crime reconstruction that address what the evidence means is also an important consideration given the different requirements of intelligence and evidence. Therefore, undertaking a crime reconstruction within a holistic framework that seeks to incorporate the complexity of the forensic science ecosystem is valuable for achieving a problem solving approach that offers reproducible, transparent reconstructions with a clear articulation of risk and uncertainty that can be of value to investigators and the courts. This article is categorized under: Forensic Science in Action/Crime Scene Investigation > Crime Scene Reconstruction Forensic Science in Action/Crime Scene Investigation > From Traces to Intelligence and Evidenc