A fundamental principle of investigation for every crime scene comes from Edmond Locard, a forensic investigator in the early 1900s. Locard strongly believed that a criminal could be connected to a crime by true evidence collected at the crime scene. He stated:

“Whenever two objects come into contact, there is always a transfer of material. The methods of detection may not be sensitive enough to demonstrate this, or the decay rate may be so rapid that all evidence of transfer has vanished after a given time. Nonetheless, the transfer has taken place.”

The forensic scientist must be methodical in his or her work. He or she must first observe general characteristics of the evidence and then observe more specific features. He or she must link evidence to a crime and to the suspects by indentifying and comparing relevant material.

Finally, the forensic scientist must come up with a theory or opinion that is able to stand up or to scientific and legal scrutiny.

Activity: The Locard Principle
You are sitting at your desk. What are you in contact with? What possible transfer of material could have taken or is taking place? Make a list. How could you have prevented any transfer if you have thought about it first? What transferred material could be traced to you directly?

Think about when you came to school or work today. Did you leave any evidence that you were there other than being observed by others (eyewitness accounts)?

Is it difficult to not leave a trace? And, after the fact, is there a lot to worry about from leaving evidence of your presence? Do you think premeditated contact can diminish identifiable transfers? Give some hypothetical examples when destroying evidence might leave more that could identify you.

I only need help with questions 7 and 8.

1). What are you in contact with?
- The desk
- The chair
- The door-knob
- Papers
- Books

2). What possible transfer of material could have taken or is taking place?
- Fingerprints
- Strands of hair
- Sweat

3). How could you have prevented any transfer if you would have thought about it first?
- You could have used gloves to prevent leaving fingerprints.
- You could have tied back loose hair to prevent hair strands from being left.
- You could have wiped all surfaces that you cam in contact with to prevent leaving fingerprints or sweat.
- You could have vacuumed or used a lint remover to get rid of hair strands.

4). What transferred material could be traced to you directly?
- Fingerprints
- Strands of hair
- Sweat
- All of the above because, they all contain DNA.

5). Is it difficult to not leave a trace?
- Yes, it is very difficult to not leave a trace, once you come in contact with something there is always a transfer of material.

6). Is there a lot to worry about from leaving evidence of your presence?
- Yes, there is a great deal of things to worry about after leaving evidence of your presences especially if a crime has been committed. You need to worry about any of the evidence being traced back to you (e.g. blood, hair, sweat, fingerprints) all of those examples contain DNA which is directly related to you

7). Do you think premeditated contact can diminish identifiable transfers?

8). Give some hypothetical examples when destroying evidence might leave more that could identify you.

No related posts.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Filed under: Forensic Accounting Schools

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!