Animal Forensics

Ivory

Mastodon or mammoth tusk used as an ivory substitute for ivory from a living species. Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service.

 

A 2012 report by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species warned that elephant poaching has reached its highest level since record keeping started a decade earlier. This, despite the 1989 international ban on the trade of new ivory. Currently, about 30,000 African elephants are killed every year. Around 400,000 African elephants still exist.

The international ban allows the trade of ivory acquired before 1989. The trick has been to distinguish between old, legal ivory and new, poached ivory. Kevin Uno, a researcher at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory is the lead author on a report that describes a technique for determining the age of ivory.

“We’ve developed a tool that allows us to determine the age of a tusk or piece of ivory, and this tells us whether it was acquired legally,” Uno said in a press release. “Our dating method is affordable for government and law enforcement agencies and can help tackle the poaching and illegal trade crises.”

You can find details about the ivory trade problem and the new technique at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory website.

Speaking of animal forensics, NPR recently posted Rhitu Chatterjee’s article about Carla Dove, an ornithologist and a forensic expert. Working in a forensics lab at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, Dove identifies birds from feathers and bone fragments. Her work is quite varied – from identifying birds that collide with airplanes to identifying avian prey of giant Burmese pythons slithering in Florida’s Everglades. Chatterjee’s article is a good starting point for an overview of the field of forensic ornithology.

 

Decaying Credibility of Bite Mark Evidence

 

No more bite mark evidence?The Associated Press’ Amanda Myers wrote a very interesting article about problems with bite mark impression evidence. “A small, mostly ungoverned group of dentists carry out bite mark analysis,” Myers wrote, “and their findings are often key evidence in prosecutions, even though there is no scientific proof that teeth can be matched definitively to a bite into human skin.”

The Associated Press analyzed court records to learn the number of those who have been exonerated after they were convicted or charged based on bite mark evidence. The results of the study: Since 2000, at least 24 men have been exonerated. Bite mark evidence had thrown one man in prison for more than 23 years.

The validity of bite marks as evidence depends upon two assumptions. First, teeth leave recognizable marks unique to an individual. Second, this uniqueness is transferred and recorded in the bitten substance. Critics argue, however, that neither assumption is supported by scientific studies.

“Bite mark evidence is the poster child of unreliable forensic science,” Chris Fabricant told Myers. Fabricant is the director of strategic litigation at the Innocence Project.

 

Facing Further Facts about FR

 

Facial recognition

Facial recognition

On June 30, The Dickinson Press website posted Robb Jeffries’ article on the use of facial recognition by several state governments. Certain states, including North Dakota and Minnesota, use photos from driver’s licenses and other identification cards to compile databases that can be scanned with facial recognition software. Both states use the images to detect identification fraud.

Speaking for the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Doug Neville said that in 2008 his agency searched about 11 million identification records to find duplicate photos. Their search flagged almost 1.3 million identification records. A review of the records revealed that many of these simply indicated people who had changed their name or twins. Nevertheless, the project led to the cancellation of nearly 10,000 identification cards.

ACLU senior policy analyst Jay Stanley stressed that a cautious and transparent use of facial recognition technology is vital for widespread acceptance. “When it comes to investigating specific crimes (with facial recognition technology), there needs to be checks and balances,” Stanley said. “This is something we see top to bottom in law enforcement, where they are making very profound decisions about what they do with this technology without input from the American public.”

Although facial recognition technology is often presented as a method approaching fingerprint ID in accuracy, this is not yet true. Facial expressions, photo angles and photo quality affect the outcome of facial recognition analysis.

Glenn Jackson, driver’s license director with the North Dakota Department of Transportation, told Jeffries that his agency’s software works best with head-on photos. “The system we have is very basic,” Jackson said. “It’s not like that ‘NCIS’ stuff where you can bring up half a cheek and know who it is.”

 

Reconstructing a Car Crash

http://youtu.be/UrBVL7IXQg0

 

 

In February 2010, a $250,000 Bentley crashed into a Hyundai Sonata, pushing the car sideways and into a water-filled canal. Water rushed into the upside-down Hyundai and caused the trapped driver to drown. Near the scene of the collision, police found the Bentley’s driver exhibiting signs of alcohol intoxication. An investigation led to the conviction of the Bentley driver for DUI manslaughter, an investigation aided by technology that reconstructed the crash.

Posted on the Evidence Technology Magazine website, Troy Snelgrove and Bob Galvin’s article, “Collision: An Accident Reconstruction Case Study,” details the methods investigators used to discover the facts behind the car collision. The article and accompanying video are good resources for anyone who wants to include this aspect of forensics in a story. Another helpful resource is the Forensic Accident website. In addition to information about accident reconstruction, you’ll find a glossary of automotive body terms – the type of terms that your fictional expert should know.