You know you are headed to court to be part of a dog and pony show when as a result of your exhaustive analysis of the physical evidence in the case, you have basically nothing salient to report. Such was the case for me recently. It was a homicide case, where the defense was claiming it was a suicide (it could have been, I have no idea). My work in the case involved comparing the projectile recovered from the decedent’s brain at autopsy. After test firing the gun in question, and spending time comparing the evidence projectile to the test fires produced in the laboratory, I couldn’t determine if the projectile had been fired from the gun in question or not. Part of that had to do with the damage to the projectile, part of it had to do with the type of projectile it was. But in the end the defense was claiming a suicide. So no one was challenging if the projectile was fired from the firearm or not. I was also asked to look for gun shot residue (GSR) on the victims clothing. I found none. If it had been there it could have been a suicide or a homicide. It wasn’t there, and it still could have been a suicide or a homicide. The ultimate determination of suicide versus homicide came from the medical examiner that gave a distance determination based on evidence on the body. But I was there (as were the rest of the criminalists) because I testify well, have an excellent CV, and excellent credentials. In short the prosecutor was making themself look good by association. I’m not complaining. I’m not making a value judgment on the prosecutor. I’m just letting you know what you will be doing sometimes in court if you pursue a career in forensics.
Though criminal justice has always fascinated me, I am the farthest one can get from a forensics career. However, reading your account was absolutely fascinating. Not only are you a good speaker, but you also a good writer. I notice you have a website. Do you have any another crime accounts there? I know this sounds like a rather sick question to ask, but I am fascinated with the way that crime scenes are analyzed, and the methods of putting the pieces of the puzzle together to see an image, an answer. I just realized what a dork I really am, but seriously, thanks for the read. Edited because one word can change the meaning of an entire sentence
I don't know what you mean by do I have any other crime accounts there. I agree with you that crime scene investigation is a fascinating field. What some highly trained, skilled, and naturally talented people can discern from a crime scene is amazing. I generally don't head out to crime scenes though. My field of expertise is a bit limited in that area. I do plan on going to some advanced training in the next year for shooting scene reconstruction. That's a special area of crime scene investigation, but one that I feel I am suited to investigate, and one that I have great interest in myself.
In your description here you went through the actual mechanics of the case, talking about trying to match the projectile to the weapon, etc. When I was asking if you had any other accounts on your site, I was asking if you had any other articles you had written on the mechanics of crime scene investigation. Does that help? My young cousin finishes high school this year, and she has aspirations to work in forensics. So, I hope you don't mind if I pass her a link to this account, and perhaps, to your site. She's incredibly bright, top of her class, with a love of science, so I can not wait for her to start work in her field so I can bother her with my multitudes of questions. I guess that would give people I meet online, like you, a break from my incessant questioning! Do you mind if I ask what you specialize in?
I don't think I have any other case specific accounts on my site. I think I will start adding them, once they go to trial. Heck I think I'll start adding some that I remember. I encourage you to point your cousin towards my site. The main purpose behind my site is to educate people about what a real career is forensics is like (as based on my experiences). I think a lot of people who go through the specialised forensic training courses in college, and then make it through the highly competitive recruitment system in place today, will be sorely dissappointed if they are looking for what they see on TV. My areas of forensic specialization are drugs, blood alcohol and firearms. I view myself primarily as a firearms examiner who has experience analysing drugs, and has to do blood alcohol because it's 75% of the work flowing through the lab where I work. My private forensic consulting company is firearms only.
You always say firearms and never ballistics. On your site, you say they're different things, but I don't see how. I'm working on ballistics now, and I don't see how it differs.
According to Wikipedia: Ballistics (gr. ba'llein, "throw") is the science that deals with the motion, behavior, and effects of projectiles, especially bullets, gravity bombs, rockets, or the like; the science or art of designing and hurling projectiles so as to achieve a desired performance. Forensic basically just means "legal". So even Forensic Ballistics just has to do with the legal aspects of objects in motion. Ballistics is the study of projectiles in motion. While that is something I might be interested in as part of a scene reconstruction, it is generally nothing I am concerned with at all. The most common questions I am responsible for are 1) does the firearm function properly and 2) do the toolmarks left on the fired bullets/casings match toolmarks produced on test fires. Neither of these two questions deal with projectiles in flight. So referring to firearms identification as "ballistics" is a common misnomer, like calling a magazine a clip, an ice box a Refrigerator, or saying that a Macintosh computer isn't a PC. It is probably generally accepted, but that doesn't make it correct.
I believe, though, that this is in part fallout from the "my expert is better than your expert" wars in the US Court System where oratory skills are sometimes more relevant than scientific merit. Here in Germany, we have court-appointed sworn experts. Since the expert is court-appointed, he is called on only when it is deemed pertinent to the case. Not being hired by a specific side, he is also supposed to be neutral. He's liable for any damages arising out of willful or grossly negligent false testimony and in the first case the issue of perjury also arises. Then again, we also don't have jury trials in the american model, but in major crimes have lay judges assisting the professional judge or judges, thus you don't just have to convince lay people but the judge as well that the facts are on your side.