Advertisement

Journal of Radioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 399–404 | Cite as

Reliability in scientific evidence based on multi trace forensic neutron activation analysis

  • W. S. Lyon
  • E. Ricci
  • L. C. Bate
  • F. F. Dyer
Article

Abstract

The forensic activation analyst must often evaluate his own results as they relate to certain legal or moral situations, since investigative officers, and courts of law are not usually competent to make judgements of the validity or meaning of scientific data. In providing scientific evidence in court, two criteria for criminal identification must be met: (1) suspect's sample should be similar to sample found at the scene of the crime, (2) samples relared to other people in the same statistical population should not generally match that found at the crime site. When two or more specimens are submitted for comparison by NAA they will usually fall into one of three classes: (a) materials about which we have partial or inconclusive data, (c) materials with an excellent analytical data background. Ideally all cases would fall in category c; in practice, very few. Some examples of cases and/or situations that fall into these three categories in both individual and corporate investigations are given.

Keywords

Asphalt Neutron Activation Analysis Moral Situation Inconclusive Data Nuclear Activation Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. B. Parker, J. Forensic Sci. Soc., 6 (1966) 33.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. B. Parker, J. Forensic Sci. Soc., 7 (1967) 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. L. Stevenson, “A Child's Garden of Verses, Happy Thought”.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    State vs. Stout (Appeal No. 56, 070 Mo. Aug. 24, 1970).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. S. Lyon, L. C. Bate, J. F. Emery, Proc. Conf. on Nuclear Activation Analysis in the Life Sciences, Bled, Yugoslavia, 1972 (in the press).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. V. Weiss, M. Koide, E. D. Goldberg, Science 174 (1971) 692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Pope, “Essay on Criticism”.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    U. S. vs. Stifel (Appeal No. 19, 958, U. S. Court Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1969).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. R. Lukens et al., Gulf-Rt-A-10684, 1972.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. Blake, “Auguries of Innocence”.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. C. Goode, G. A. wood, N. M. Brooke, R. F. Coleman, AWRE-0-24/71, 1971.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. R. Lukens, H. L. Schlesinger, CONF 710402, Vol. 2, 1971, p. 81.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. F. Coleman et al., AERE 086/66, 1971.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    W. A. Sedlacek, P. R. Guthals, H. L. Smith, LA-DC-13316, 1971.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. S. Karjala, Calif. Law Rev. 59 (1971) 997Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Burns, “To a Louse”.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1973

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. S. Lyon
    • 1
  • E. Ricci
    • 1
  • L. C. Bate
    • 1
  • F. F. Dyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Analytical Chemistry DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak Ridge(USA)

Personalised recommendations