FORENSIC FOCUS @CSIDDS LINKS | Feb 19 |
Oregon suspect linked to AZ cold case as crime scene fingerprints “resubmitted” to the Federally managed archive. I wonder what happened to the first submission? The cold case is 40 years old but the story implies data got ignored or dropped for some reason.
This is a systemic problem with agencies “sharing” investigation data. http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/2d541f7dca104ccfb42d99d9ba962421/AZ–Cold-Case-Arrest/#.UwOquPldXW8
Third tier college opens a curriculum on computer (aka: “digital” forensics). This aspect of forensics is newly and very loosely defined regardless of the various “look-sees” by the NIJ guideline committees (called SWGs). Now the NCFS may be taking a look too. Maybe they will be called DSWG. (digital science working groups. Or?
A prosecutor brings in DNA evidence from a cap found at the crime scene. Prosecution analyst says it was worn by the murder defendant. The defense counsel has to bring up the fact that four other unknown DNA profiles were also on the cap. He counters that there is no proof that his client was last the wear it. This implies there are four other possible suspects still out there. The jury will probably hear from the DA on re-direct that “you still cannot eliminate the defendant from committing this heinous crime.” Or something like that.
I bet this prosecutor charges every single case of pot possession. His weakness seems to be sex crimes that are in the “non-stranger” category.
Anthros’ review on skeletal injuries on infants and small children. One problem is that kids heal fast and radiographs may not reveal their presence.