A case study is presented in which exclusionary and comparative analysis of soil from locations associated with a murder and on clothing from the victim and suspect proved important in the investigation of what happened. The soil on clothing comprised 1 to 2 mm diameter ‘specks’ and thus were considered trace evidence: how to handle such quantities of soil is considered in the context of a review of the history of trace evidence in legal cases. The criminal mind is becoming increasingly familiar with clean-up procedures following a criminal event. Police officers and forensic scientists are being faced with scenes of crime that exhibit smaller and smaller amounts of trace evidence available for analysis. Therefore the techniques which are carried out upon recoverable evidence are crucial — as the amount of material available for investigation is diminishing. Investigative research into the analysis of trace mud splashes on different substrate materials attempts to utilise the amount of information which can be obtained at this micro scale. Analysis of these splashes becomes increasingly important when a number of analytical techniques are used to establish their origin: in light of the limited material available non-destructive techniques are therefore top priority in this type of investigative research. This chapter aims to highlight ideas that should be considered during an investigation, information that can be obtained through non-destructive analysis and to provide some guidance as to limitations of analysis techniques.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
BBC (2007). Madeleine evidence ‘may be lost.’ www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6761669.stm. Accessed 20th June 2007.
Bennett WW and Hess KM (2004). Criminal Investigation (7th Edition). Thompson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Block EB (1958). The Wizard of Berkeley. Coward-McCann, New York.
British Geological Survey (2006). Mineral Planning Factsheet — Kaolin. www.mineralsuk.com/ britmin/mpfkaolin.pdf. Accessed 20th June 2007.
Bull PA, Morgan RM and Dunkerley S (2005). Letter to the editor — ‘SEM-EDS analysis and discrimination of forensic soil’ by Cengiz et al. Forensic Science International 155:222–224.
Bull P, Parker A and Morgan R (2006). The forensic analysis of soils and sediment taken from the cast of a footprint. Forensic Science International 162:6–12.
Conan Doyle A (1890). Sherlock Holmes: The Sign of Four. www.sherlock-holmes.classic-literature. co.uk/the-sign-of-the-four/. Accessed 10th January 2007.
Croft DJ and Pye K (2004). Colour theory and evaluation of an instrumental method of measurement using geological samples for forensic applications. In: Forensic Geoscience Principles, Techniques and Applications (Eds. K Pye and D Croft), pp. 49–62. The Geological Society of London, London.
Evett IW (1991). Interpretation: A personal odyssey. In: The Use of Statistics in Forensic Science (Eds. CGG Aitken and DA Stoney), pp. 9–22. Ellis Horwood, London.
Hellerstein WE (2005). Freeing the innocent: Why so hard? New York Law Journal 233: No. 46.
Hilderbrand DS (1999). Footwear, the Missed Evidence — A Field Guide to the Collection and Preservation of Forensic Footwear Impression Evidence. Staggs, Wildomar, CA.
Houck M (2003). Trace Evidence Analysis. Elsevier Academic, London.
Inman K and Rudin N (2001). Principles and Practice of Criminalistics: The Profession of Forensic Science. CRC, New York.
Kugler W (2003). X-ray diffraction analysis in the forensic science: The last resort in many criminal cases in JCPDS — International Centre for Diffraction Data 2003. Advances in X-ray Analysis 46:1–16.
Morgan RM and Bull PA (2007). The philosophy, nature and practice of forensic sediment analysis. Progress in Physical Geography 31:1–16.
Morgan RM, Wiltshire P, Parker A and Bull PA (2006). The role of forensic geoscience in wildlife crime detection. Forensic Science International 162:152–162.
Murray RC (2004). Evidence from the Earth: Forensic Geology and Criminal Investigation. Mountain Press, Missoula, MT.
Olsen RD and Lee HC (2001). Identification of latent prints. In: Advances in Fingerprint Technology (Eds. HC Lee and RE Gaensslen), pp. 41–63. CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
Palenik SJ (2000). Microscopy. In: Encyclopaedia of Forensic Science (Eds. J Siegel, G Knupfer and P Saukko). pp 161–166 Academic, Press, New York.
Pye K and Blott SJ (2004). Particle size analysis of sediments, soils and related particulate materials for forensic purposes using laser granulometry. Forensic Science International 144:19–27.
Ruffell A and McKinley J (2008). Geoforensics. Wiley, Chichester.
Scientific American (1856). Science and Art: Curious Use of the Microscope. Scientific American, 11: 240. See: www.cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgibin/moa/pageviewer?coll + moa&root = %2Fmoa%2Fs. Accessed 21st November 2007.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Keaney, A., Ruffell, A., McKinley, J. (2009). Geological Trace Evidence: Forensic and Legal Perspectives. In: Ritz, K., Dawson, L., Miller, D. (eds) Criminal and Environmental Soil Forensics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9204-6_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9204-6_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9203-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9204-6
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)