Filtering by
- All Subjects: Forensics
- Creators: School of Mathematical and Natural Sciences
- Creators: School of Human Evolution and Social Change
The subcategory of evidence deemed trace evidence is frequently seen in crime scenes, and while it is commonly the smallest evidence around, that doesn’t stop it from greatly contributing to the findings at the scene. Blood evidence may be categorized into this group in certain cases at crime scenes, especially in cases of transfer between two objects or people. In this study, the transfer of blood across both porous and non-porous substrates was examined to determine the persistence of blood across both substrates. The resulting stains after each trial of transfers were tested with a presumptive blood test commonly used in crime labs, the Kastle-Meyer test. Throughout all trials of the experiment, it was determined that blood on a non-porous surface typically dries faster as long as there isn’t a pooling effect, which hinders the ability for a stain to be continuously transferred and detected by Kastle-Meyer. Conversely, porous substrates are more likely to absorb and retain the blood in the material, allowing the blood to be released when pressure is applied, causing the stain to transfer more easily and result in a stain that will produce a positive Kastle-Meyer result.
Despite the consistent coverage of death on a large scale, the average person is not often exposed to death on a personal level in this day and age. The deaths we see on television or in the movies are not typically connected to people with whom we are attached and so we are not required to work through our emotional response and experience. We are afforded the space to be a casual observer in most of the deaths that we see—we do not need the emotional and mental tools to cope with death on a personal level. While this distance from death may be true of the American whole, it is not entirely generalizable. Professionals in select fields are required to deal with death on a much more regular basis than the average person, including, but not limited to, healthcare and forensic professionals. In these professions, death is a fundamental aspect of the job—either as an expected risk or a necessary precursor. These professionals deal intimately with death, its causes, and its effects on a regular basis because of their chose line of work and, in doing so, are regularly exposed to death and other trauma which has the potential to affect them on both a professional and personal level. In doing so, these professionals are required to, as scientists, analyze and record these experiences with death through the lens of objectivity. These professionals are expected to maintain a professional distance while also being required to give an empathetic response to other’s trauma. The potential effect of this secondary trauma on these professionals is only sharpened by the culture of machismo in these science-based fields that prevents many professionals from expressing emotions regarding their job and getting the social support they need from others within their community.
Forensic science is tasked with using calculative thinking with scientifically accepted methods of measurement and detection as well as the meditative task of applying their data to messy, real-world events. In order to support my supposition of forensic scientists being hermeneutical workers, three paintings were created. The three paintings can be considered a tryptic of sorts due to the context in which they are presented: forensic science. They each tell a story that is weaved within each other – spatter indicating violence long past, the empty void of a body gone, and the cold decomposition of a victim found. It is the forensic scientist that must interpret each piece separately and is tasked with finding how and why they are put together. The hermeneutical work of the forensic scientist interpreting a crime scene uses the same methods as one who interprets text. A forensic scientist opens possibilities of meaning in the same way that Martin Heidegger’s hermeneutic circle does. There is interplay between the interpreter (the forensic scientist) and the text (the crime scene), questions are formed (what happened here?) and responses are made (evidence found at the scene). This question and response outlook is what make the forensic scientist a hermeneutic thinker.