M. M. Houck.

Scientific American, Vol. 295, No. 1, July, 2006, pp. 84-89.

Forensics has never been more popular or popularized. Of the top 20 shows on television last year, eight were crime dramas. On one specific day, 27% of all American televisions were tuned into CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. The popularity of these shows has led to what is called the "CSI effect"; some members of the legal profession have the impression that jurors now demand unreasonable levels of physical evidence in trials. Any CSI effect is still unproved. However, CSI programs have influenced the activities of police, who collect more pieces of physical evidence than ever before, and of overburdened crime laboratories. In academia, forensics programs are growing rapidly. Before CSI became popular, attorneys were more worried about whether a jury was going to understand complex deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence, but jurors now expect there be a DNA test for almost every case. The television programs give the public a distorted view of forensic science and what it can and cannot do. The actors playing forensic personnel are a blend of police officer, detective, and forensic scientist. However, this job description does not actually exist. Law enforcement, investigations, and forensic science are each complex enough in their own right that they demand their own education, training, and methods. In addition, laboratories often do not perform all types of analyses, either because of cost, insufficient resources, or rare demand. Fictional forensics programs differ from the real world in the portrayal of scientific techniques. Approximately 40% of the forensics science on CSI does not exist. Even if forensic science does not have all the tools of television shows, the technologies are becoming more sophisticated all the time. Databases of DNA, fingerprints, and firearms ammunition are important resources. However, many labs are struggling under the heightened demands of investigators who feel pressure to collect increasing amounts of evidence.

A. R. Williams.

National Geographic, Vol. 207, No. 6, June, 2005, pp. 2-21.

King Tutankhamun, the Egyptian pharaoh who reigned in the 14th century BCE from the age of 9 until his untimely death while still a teenager, has received considerable interest from both experts and amateurs ever since British archaeologist Howard Carter discovered his tomb in an ancient Egyptian cemetery called the Valley of the Kings in 1922. In particular, his death under mysterious circumstances has been the subject of much speculation. Some have suggested that he was murdered in a conspiracy involving his own family and friends, while others claim that he died in battle. Another theory based on his mangled chest where the breastbone and much of the front ribcage were missing is that he died in an accident when his chariot crashed during a hunting expedition. King Tut could have also succumbed to infection or illness due to a plague that ravaged Egypt during his time. To find out what really happened to King Tut, a team of specialists in radiology, forensics, and anatomy subjected his mummy to a computer tomography (CT) scan. The CT scan found no trace of lethal trauma to King Tut's head, refuting the claim that he died from a blow to the head. In addition, the elongated shape of the skull falls within the range of normal variation and was not the result of some kind of disease. The maturity of the skeleton and wisdom teeth confirms that Tut was about 19 years old when he died. Tut stood about 5 feet 6 inches tall, had a slight build, and was in excellent health, free of any disease that would have affected his physique. Based on these findings, it is possible that something out of the ordinary caused King Tut's death, but the experts are unsure because they could not distinguish between possible injuries incurred by Tut while he was still alive and the damage Carter's team inflicted on the mummy during excavation.

National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Ctr (NLECTC), 2277 Research Boulevard, Mail Stop 8J, Rockville, MD 20850.

US Dept of Justice, 2005.

This report describes metadata and how it can be used to solve crimes. Metadata is quite literally data about data. Metadata is the information stored below the surface of computer documents, spreadsheets, or presentations. Office productivity programs, such as Microsoft Office, create this metadata online, although few users realize it is there because it is hidden. Such information can help forensic investigators to identify an employee who is improperly accessing sensitive documents, to establish links between criminal suspects, and to uncover valuable investigative information. Indeed, the case of the Wichita, Kansas BTK serial killer was solved by using metadata to link a computer disk mailed to a television station with a computer in the BTK killer s church. Contact information is presented for more details about metadata.

Jay Levinson.

Academic Press, United States, 2001.

This book explains both the history and basics of questioned documents, in the field of forensic engineering, providing a resource to lawyers in the presentation of document evidence and the interrogation of witnesses. Questioned document analysis is applied to many types of investigation: fraud, homicide, suicide, drug trafficking, sexual offenses, threats, and extortion, blackmail, arson, bombings, theft, and more. The book begins with an introduction to questioned documents including: an historical overview, the discipline and role of questioned documents, the hiring and training of a questioned document examiner, the written declaration and testimony of an expert document examiner, opposing expert witness, private or public document laboratory, cross-examination of evidence, ethics, and research conducted by document examiner. It is the job of the document examiner to examine all documents. The book continues with an examination of various questioned document technologies including: handwriting; typewriters; printers; other office machines, (i.e., facsimile, perforator, checkwriter, paper cutter, and computer); cachets or rubber stamps and seals; printing, (i.e., letterpress, photo-offset, engraving, and printing inks); document copying; photography; writing inks and dyes, pens, and pencils; paper; erasures, obliterations, and alterations; office supplies, (i.e., paper clips, staples, and adhesive tape); fingerprints on documents, and examination equipment, (i.e., magnifiers, microscopes, light sources, projectina, and laser). Appendices 1 through 6, index

J. Nickell.

International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners, Vol. 3, No. 1, January-March 1997, pp. 59.

Experts in the areas of handwriting, ink analysis, and the study of historical documents conducted a joint document examination of a diary purported to be that of Jack the Ripper, who committed several murders in London, England, in 1888, and concluded that the evidence that this document is a forgery is clear and compelling. A Liverpool, England, scrap-metal dealer named Mike Barrett allegedly came into possession of the diary in 1991. This article's author and other experts hired by the diary's intended co-publisher performed several analyses. They conducted infrared and ultraviolet light examinations, an examination for indented handwritten impressions using the electrostatic detection apparatus, and ink tests using a thin-layer chromatographic analysis and an ion-migration test. The author addressed the issues of provenance, internal evidence, and writing materials. Results revealed suspicious circumstances surrounding the diary's alleged discovery, internal evidence suggesting that the text was derived from books and other publications, and the implausible nature of the scrapbook-turned diary. However, the handwriting provided the most significant evidence. The co-publisher canceled publication. Other events related to the diary included an earlier announcement by the Sunday Times of London that its panel of experts had also determined that the diary was a fake, the diary's publication by another United States publisher, Barrett's confession in 1994 that he had forged the diary, and his retraction of the confession. However, further testing confirmed the presence of a modern preservative used in the reproduction Victorian ink but not in the original variety. Photograph, 47 reference notes, and list of 4 additional readings

M. Hansen.

ABA Journal, Vol. 82, No. , October 1996, pp. 18-20.

This article presents arguments for and against the expert testimony in the Menendez case that involved the computer- generated re-enactment of the crime. Failure Analysis Associates, which has been known primarily for its work on behalf of the auto industry in product liability cases, used state-of-the-art computer imaging techniques to recreate the crime scene scenario that prosecutors used in the trial that led to the conviction of the Menendez brothers for killing their parents. Roger McCarthy, then the chief executive of Failure Analysis, presented the expert testimony and the re- enactment. McCarthy testified that by analyzing more than 800 crime-scene and autopsy photos, the firm had been able to determine the number and most likely sequence of shots, as well as the position of both victims with every shot and the general direction from which each shot came. Allegheny County, Pa., coroner Cyril Wecht maintains that this contention alone is an absurd claim, since nobody has ever attempted to reconstruct a crime scene scenario that involved two killers, two victims, and 12 shotgun blasts in the order of their occurrence. Other forensic experts criticize various claims made by McCarthy. They argue that the firm ignored and misinterpreted evidence, miscalculated the trajectory of several shots, mixed speculation with fact, made assumptions about things that are physically impossible, and ascribed intentions to the defendants' acts. Although McCarthy's testimony may not have had a significant impact on the jury's decision to convict, critics say the episode illustrates the inherent danger of allowing a team of engineers with little apparent expertise in forensic medicine or criminalistics to analyze a crime scene and present questionable findings to a jury.