Talk:Forensic science/Archives/2013

I have read the first paragraph of the article several times, and there seems to me to be something left out. It reads:

"... forensics encompasses the blob methodology and norms under which the facts regarding an event ... are to the broader notion of authentication poo"

What is this trying to say? Should the word "related" be inserted after "are"?

Also, I don't think the words "outside of a legal form" should be there.

I haven't made these changes because I'm not sure whether I'm missing something.

ARBrennan (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nurg has fixed this up -- thanks! ARBrennan (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

For an August 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Forensics

sherlock homlmes belive it or not did not invent science. I think not. Certainly Sherlock Holmes inspired many forensic scientists, and I understand that the stories were even used as preliminary texts in some places, but science has been applied to law for longer than that!

This article should mention Edmond Locard.

Should we take off the stub status? The article looks like it's had quite a bit of contribution already. Caufman 03:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd be cool with that; it seems to have improved a lot lately. Nae'blis 22:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Who's MacgyverMagic i wonder.............. I am pursuing a career as a crime lab analyst or a crime scene investigator. while i do not like dead people, i would be able to handle it as these are well-paying jobs. I am considering starting a group to work on these aricles and help clarify any confusion about this subject. I know my research and facts so if you feel it necessary to challenge me on things of this subject, please be prepared to defend your arguments, accusations, etc.. If you would like to work on this project, please e-mail me at londonlover93@aol.com. i will be working on this for about 3-4 months and most likely during the summer as welll as the many other projects i will be working on. Please contact me if interested and discuss this with me. if not interested but you wish to speak with me about this subject, contact me at the above adress.

04:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)~CSI'snextstar

The article title should really be changed to "Forensic Science" with a disambiguation page for the term "Forensics". There are still plenty of schools that offer a debate course in Forensics, and the term "forensic science" is a more accurate description of this page. Also, the term "Criminalistics" redirects to "Forensic Science" but this isn't really accurate. Criminalitics is a subset of forensic science, just like forensic psychology or forensic engineering. It should have its own page. -posted by Criminalist, 08 November 2005

PLEASE READ!

sorry to be a negative nancy, but this entire page is copied from http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc3/forensics ...or is it vice versa? please can soebody investigate this, if it does turn out to be a copy i will happily re-write the page (area is of great interest to me)

I haven't yet looked at your site, but in my experience, Wikipedia articles get copied to a wide variety of sites, sometimes without attribution. As I wrote modest sections of this article, I would say Wiki is the point of origin. WBardwin 20:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think someone needs to look closely at the template on the right headed forensic science. Seem to be some irrelevant entries (isn't taphonomy included with entomology / palynology with forensic botany etc.), others which can be better summarised (skid mark evidence / RTA analysis maybe??). Not sure about social forensics, certainly wouldn't include Modus Operandi in there as it doesn't seem forensics related, more investigatively related. Sections 1 and 2 could probably do with being merged in some form or another. Not sure how active this page is so please leave any thoughts on this subject. paulerob, 02 May 2007

Clarification

Removed the following from the article. Does it make any sense to anyone? WBardwin 20:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Then there is what the media downplays. When art critics downplay the sensitivity of an international artist, the media creates an epistemic blackout thus blinding nations from the tools of fighting crimes.

Speaking of Locard

There are two versions of his principle of exchange: Locard's principle and Locard's exchange principle. I've plated them both for a merge, with redirects being left. What do you guys think? --Sasuke Sarutobi 22:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Forensics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article deals with forensic science, used in legal proceedings. For forensics in public speaking, see debate and individual events.

Forensic science Human remains Forensic pathology · Forensic odontology Forensic anthropology · Forensic taphonomy Forensic entomology Social forensics Forensic psychology · Forensic psychiatry Modus Operandi · Offender profiling Other specializations Latent Print Examination · Ballistics Bloodstain pattern analysis Forensic genetics · Serology Forensic footwear evidence · Tire track evidence Forensic toxicology · Forensic palynology Questioned document examination Forensic accounting Cybertechnology in forensics Information forensics · Computer forensics Forensic databases Forensic engineering Structural failures Fire investigation Vehicular accident reconstruction Related articles Crime scene · CSI Effect

Trace evidence · DNA analysis

view /edit this template Forensic science (often shortened to forensics) is the application of a broad spectrum of sciences to answer questions of interest to the legal system. This may be in relation to a crime or to a civil action. The use of the term "forensics" in place of "forensic science" could be considered incorrect; the term "forensic" is effectively a synonym for "legal" or "related to courts" (from Latin, it means "before the forum"). However, it is now so closely associated with the scientific field that many dictionaries include the meaning given here.

Contents [hide] 1 Applications and subdivisions 2 History of forensics 3 Forensic science in the media 4 Forensics as Speech and Debate 5 See also 6 Further reading 7 External links

[edit] Applications and subdivisions Criminalistics is the application of various sciences to answer questions relating to examination and comparison of biological evidence, trace evidence, impression evidence (such as fingerprints, footwear impressions, and tire tracks), controlled substances, firearms, and other evidence in criminal investigations. Typically, evidence is processed in a crime lab. This is the division of forensic science most often reported in the media and depicted in popular fiction.

Some of the other forensic science disciplines are:

Forensic accounting is the study and interpretation of accounting evidence.

Forensic anthropology is the application of physical anthropology in a legal setting, usually for the recovery and identification of skeletonized human remains.

Forensic economics is the study and interpretation of economic damage evidence to include present day calculations of lost earnings and benefits, the lost value of a business, lost business profits, lost value of household service, replacement labor costs and future medical care costs.

Forensic engineering studies the causes of failure of devices and structures.

Forensic entomology deals with the examination of insects in, on, and around human remains to assist in determination of time or location of death. It is also possible to determine if the body was moved after death.

Forensic epistemology deals with philosophical knowledge in a legal setting, typically for understanding behavior of states.

Forensic linguistics deals with anything in the legal system that requires linguistic expertise.

Forensic odontology is the study of the uniqueness of dentition. (study of teeth)

Forensic photography is the art of producing an accurate photographic reproduction of a crime scene for the benefit of a court.

Forensic psychology and forensic psychiatry deal with the legal aspects of human behavior.

Forensic toxicology is the study of the effect of drugs and poisons on the human body.

Forensic Ballistics is the science dealing with the investigation of use of firearms and ammunition.

Questioned document examination is the study and interpretation of evidence that takes the form of document.

Forensics is also related to speech communication such as a Forensics Team (high school/college).

[edit] History of forensics The "Eureka" legend of Archimedes (287-212 BC) can be considered an early account of the use of forensic science. In this case, by examining the principles of water displacement, Archimedes was able to prove that a crown was not made of gold (as it was fraudulently claimed) by its density and buoyancy.

The earliest account of fingerprint use to establish identity was during the 7th century. According to Soleiman, an Arabic merchant, a debtor's fingerprints were affixed to a bill, which would then be given to the lender. This bill was legally recognized as proof of the validity of the debt.

The first written account of using medicine and entomology to solve (separate) criminal cases is attributed to the book Xi Yuan Ji Lu (洗冤集錄, translated as "Collected Cases of Injustice Rectified"), written in 1248 China by Song Ci (宋慈, 1186-1249). In one of the accounts, the case of a person murdered with a sickle was solved by a death investigator who instructed everyone to bring their sickles to one location. Flies, attracted by the smell of blood, eventually gathered on a single sickle. In light of this, the murderer confessed. The book also offered advice on how to distinguish between a drowning (water in the lungs) and strangulation (broken neck cartilage).

In sixteenth century Europe, medical practitioners in army and university settings began to gather information on cause and manner of death. Ambroise Paré, a French army surgeon, systematically studied the effects of violent death on internal organs. Two Italian surgeons, Fortunato Fidelis and Paolo Zacchia, laid the foundation of modern pathology by studying changes which occurred in the structure of the body as the result of disease. In the late 1700s, writings on these topics began to appear. These included: "A Treatise on Forensic Medicine and Public Health" by the French physician Fodéré, and "The Complete System of Police Medicine" by the German medical expert Johann Peter Franck.

In 1775, Swedish chemist Carl Wilhelm Scheele devised a way of detecting arsenous oxide, simple arsenic, in corpses, although only in large quantities. This investigation was expanded, in 1806, by German chemist Valentin Ross, who learned to detect the poison in the walls of a victim's stomach, and by English chemist James Marsh, who used chemical processes to confirm arsenic as the cause of death in an 1836 murder trial.

Two early examples of English forensic science in individual legal proceedings demonstrate the increasing use of logic and procedure in criminal investigations. In 1784, in Lancaster, England, John Toms was tried and convicted for murdering Edward Culshaw with a pistol. When the dead body of Culshaw was examined, a pistol wad (crushed paper used to secure powder and balls in the muzzle) found in his head wound matched perfectly with a torn newspaper found in Toms' pocket. In Warwick, England, in 1816, a farm laborer was tried and convicted of the murder of a young maidservant. She had been drowned in a shallow pool and bore the marks of violent assault. The police found footprints and an impression from corduroy cloth with a sewn patch in the damp earth near the pool. There were also scattered grains of wheat and chaff. The breeches of a farm laborer who had been threshin<math>Insert non-formatted text here</math>[[Media:[[Image:Example.ogg]] == [Headline text][[''Link title'''''''Bold text''[[Link title]]''']] == ]]g wheat nearby were examined and corresponded exactly to the impression in the earth near the pool.

[edit] Forensic science in the media Sherlock Holmes, the fictional character created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in works produced from 1887 to 1915, used forensic science as one of his investigating methods. Conan Doyle credited the inspiration for Holmes on his teacher at the medical school of the University of Edinburgh, the gifted surgeon and forensic detective Joseph Bell.

Decades later, the comic strip, Dick Tracy also featured a detective using a considerable number of forensic methods, although sometimes the methods were more fanciful than actually possible. Popular television series focusing on crime detection, including CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, CSI: Miami, and CSI: NY, depict glamorized versions of the activities of 21st Century forensic scientists. These related TV shows have changed individuals' expectations of forensic science, an influence termed the "CSI effect".

In the video game Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, Forensic Science is used in various cases.

Forensics as Speech and Debate

I would support removing this section from the article and merging appropriate info into the Debate article. The header clearly directs the reader to Debate. WBardwin 18:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Name of article (proposed move to Forensic science)

Am I the only one who is uncomfortable about an encyclopedia article containing a couple of sentences justifying and defending the name of the article? (I refer to The use of the term "forensics" in place of "forensic science" could be considered incorrect; the term "forensic" is effectively a synonym for "legal" or "related to courts" (from Latin, it means "before the forum"). However, it is now so closely associated with the scientific field that many dictionaries include the meaning given here.) IMO, the name of the article should be changed from Forensics (which arguably has a primary meaning of "speech and debate") to Forensic science. --orlady 23:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment: Forensics should become a disambiguation page. --orlady 15:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The term "forensics" does formally refer to speech and debate. Also, placing "science" in the title should remind users that this is primaily an article about science in the courts. Not all evidence used in the legal system is scientific; just google "forensic astrology". Criminalist 03:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Lessens confusion with speech and debate and more accurately conveys the title. 205.157.110.11 03:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. —  AjaxSmack  06:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support including additional suggestion. --WikidSmaht (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

PAGE MOVED per discussion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

New external link

I have just added the website all-about-forensic-science.com which I hope people agree is a very useful addition.

No. It's blatant Adsense fuelled linkspam. Go somewhere else with your vandalism.

Yet another new external link

dear sir i have added an external link to the unique european non profit association of states universities on forensic sciences

Slightly confusing section headings

I find the use of almost equal section headings for the sections "Subdivisions of forensic science" and "Applications and subdivisions of forensic science" a little confusing. I think we should either try and combine those two sections, or come up with a more descriptive heading, or headings. --Wernher 05:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with that, section 1 and 2 need consolidating, also a bit of discussion as to what is actually forensic science and what should be considered as experts in other fields helping out - ie. road accident investigation, forensic engineering. Other bits such as forensic accounting, as to my knowledge there is no science to accouting and it should really be investigative accounting. Maybe we should have a discussion about which need to stay and which to go. (Paulerob 09:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

Actually, the term "forensic" is perfectly applicable to accounting analysis which seeks to provide information relevant to the legal system. However, I agree with you, it doesn't belong on the page "forensic science". -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 04:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a page titled Forensics (disambiguation) and transferred the links to non natural-science related topics from this page to that one. I also combined the two above-mentioned sections into one. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 05:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Forensic epistemology

According to this website [1], the phrase was coined by a philosophy graduate student who used Wikipedia to promote his novel concept. Apparently a consensus was reached that he had not established notability and was placing original research on Wikipedia, so the page was deleted. I have removed the term from this page. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 23:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

External Link Request

My name is David Webb and along with Dr Iain Pretty I write and maintain the All About Forensic Science Blog. I would be very grateful if you would consider adding our blog to the external links section of the forensic science Wikipedia page.

Many thanks for your time

David Webb BSc (hons), MSc

Iain Pretty BDS (Hons), MSc, PhD, MFDSRCS (Ed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.145.40 (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. We don't ordinarily add blogs, per our external links and reliable sources guides. On rare occasions, we make exceptions (if the blog holds particularly valuable information and/or if it belongs to a notable or official entity), but usually, we deem it as too personal of a source. El_C 10:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Link Proposal

http://www.forensicHub.com: "forensicHUB.com provides a place for forensic professionals and students to join forensic discussions and view or post useful resources, job opportunities and events. This online community incorporates a mixture of PUBLIC and PRIVATE forums. PRIVATE forums require identity verification before access will be granted."

A useful and legitimate resource for people interested in Forensic Science? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wygk (talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, no response after 2 weeks - I'm going to add it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wygk (talk • contribs) 03:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing subdivision forensic statistics

I think the subdivision forensic statistics/forensic mathematics is missing. See category:forensic statistics. Andries (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC) == <nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki></nowiki>

Why do links to The Forensic Examiner keep getting removed?

Please explain why The Forensic Examiner, which is the largest and mostly widely circulated magazine devoted to forensic science, keeps getting removed from the Forensic Science page. In all fairness, Forensic Magazine should also be removed, or the link to The Forensic Examiner should be allowed as well. Both publications offer good forensic science articles.

The Examiner is a peer-reviewed journal. It is widely distributed by Barnes & Noble and Borders book stores. It has low advertising content. It has serious forensic articles and would be a good addition to the "further reading" section.

John.lechliter (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John.lechliter (talk • contribs) 14:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If you would bother to read your talk page, you might understand...Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Template removal

Who keeps removing the useful template and why? Peterlewis (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Arpad Vass

New Decomposition odor analysis or DOA being developed by Arpad Vass SriMesh | talk 03:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Quality

This article is informative, but lacks a little finesse. I guess it serves its purpose, but could be made more interesting.

Shawn Crapo (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ballistics =/= firearm examination

Under the heading of "criminalistics," firearms examination had been listed as a part of ballistics. I separated these two out, as firearms examination and ballistics are, in fact, very different fields. 206.194.127.112 (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fingerprinting?

Should anything on fingerprinting be linked on this page?--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Report from the National Research Council

"A congressionally mandated report from the National Research Council finds serious deficiencies in the U.S. forensic science system and calls for major reforms and new research. Rigorous and mandatory certification programs for forensic scientists are currently lacking, the report says, as are strong standards and protocols for analyzing and reporting on evidence."[2]

I think this is high-profile enough to merit mention in the article. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it actually is mentioned in the article in a way, a very roundabout way, except that instead of stating that a report from the National Research Council put forth certain criticisms, the article only mentions a New York Post article which mentions the report. Obviously between the National Research Council and the Post we would rather go to the source. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the actual source would be much better than referencing a media outlet (especially using a single short quote that focuses on a relatively trivial aspect of the issue). FWIW, the report was prepared under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences which is a component of the National Research Council in the USA and it covers much more territory than has been suggested here. It would be very helpful to expand upon the topic -- in fact, a proper overview of the report could easily be it's own wiki article.

Among other things the NAS report talked about resource issues, case backlogs, lab/examiner independence, laboratory oversight, accreditation, certification and issues relating to the reliability and validity for various techniques and methods presented by an expert witness in court. By presenting only this quote the sub-section ends upon with more of a negative tone than it needs. The NAS report was critical in parts (some of it justified, some not) but most forensic scientists and examiners I know consider it to be a positive thing on balance (including those of us who aren't in the US and so would not be directly affected by the recommendations either way).

If the goal here is to let people know that forensic science has some 'issues' and isn't 'perfect', then the NAS report is a great reference. But it should not be the only one. Why not mention or link to information about relevant court rulings such as Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (for the US), R. v. Mohan (for Canada) among many others? These do a much better job discussing some of the controversial aspects of forensic science and expert evidence.

There is great value in providing information about this aspect of forensic science because many people do not appreciate nor understand that there are limits, controversies and issues. This topic could arguably be addressed on pages relating to each discipline within forensic science. Perhaps it should be since different disciplines have taken different approaches to addressing these concerns. But the primary concerns blanket all the disciplines so I think it makes sense to mention them on the main topic page.

One last thought, I think the earlier sub-section entitled 'Questionable Techniques' relates directly to the points raised in the 'Controversies' sub-section. That information should probably be moved and expanded upon as there are other examples that could be included with these two.

I can try to draft something to address these points (and post here for review) but, unfortunately like most people, I don't have much time so that won't happen soon. RB Ostrum 15:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by QDE-can (talk • contribs)

Forensic engineering

How come this isn't under subdivisions but rather under "See also", Subdivisions of what if engineering isn't included. I don't want to mess up the article. Could someone check.--71.236.26.74 (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Forensic surveyor

The work carried out by a forensic surveyor is different from the others listed in article. Do you think it should be added to the subdivisions of forensic science? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.25.124.140 (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

/* External Link Request!!!! */

Hi my name is Benjamin Bowles. I have been producing a forensic science information website, for students to use as a reference guide. It has great information on it, and is expanding day by day. More information still needs to be added. I would like you to consider my site to be added to the external links section of the forensic science Wikipedia page.

Site: Forensic Science Information

Thanks Benjamin Bowles Executive Director of Web Design and Publishing Adspace4U at Home Advertising

--92.29.178.145 (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I took a look at your site and it seemed rather poor and not compatable with my browser. Therefore I've removed your link. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. Vsmith (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The home page takes a little while to load, as it is having some problems at the moment. The information on it is perfect for many people trying to understand any aspect on forensics. I am not self promoting. The site does not sell anything. Its plainly for informational use, and a reference for people to use. Nothing wrong with it.

92.29.178.145 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Forensic Education Information

I feel that this article is missing information about Forensic Science education and training. I submit the following pages as possible external links for the group. Please submit your feedback, or other link suggestions. http://www.criminaljusticeschoolinfo.com/forensic-science-degree.html http://www.criminaljusticeschoolinfo.com/crime-scene-investigation-training.html

Cheers. Jill

--75.165.65.163 (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a good resource. I would say that this page would be the best pick: http://www.criminaljusticeschoolinfo.com/forensic-science-degree.html I'm going to post that page unless anyone objects?

Well, I have to object. It's an interesting site but:

1) aside from acting as a portal to other websites, the information on the webpage is little more than that provided on WP as far as I can see.

2) more important, some of the information is inaccurate and perhaps self-serving. For example, many of the discipline descriptions include a statement like "To become employed with most of the major law enforcement agencies you will need a bachelors degree, preferrably a bachelor's degree in criminal justice with a concentration in forensic science, in order to meet the requirements for employment." [my emphasis added] That statement is simply not true because, in general, most employers want a degree in science or forensic science; not criminal justice either with or without a particular concentration. It is possible that a criminal justice degree would be appealing to some labs but it's misleading to say it would be 'preferred'. I decided to try and find out who runs the site but 'Criminaljusticeschoolinfo.com' is registered via DomainsByProxy.com making it impossible to determine who actually owns/runs the site. That, in itself, isn't necessarily a concern but I wonder why a legit organization would use such a proxy? Maybe there's a reason but I would like to know more about who is behind the site before putting a link to the site from WP.

IMO, this site should not be added until it can be determined who is running the site. As for the Jill's comments, if the page is lacking information then a better answer would be to add it to WP. It could reside on the main page but I personally think this type of information should be discussed on the sub-pages relating to each discipline simply because the educational requirements do vary by discipline. — RB Ostrum. 19:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"Notable" forensic scientists

I have no issue with most of the entries in the list of "Notable forensic scientists". But I don't understand the inclusion of Clea Koff whose main claim to notability appears to be working for the UN for a few years mainly while doing her graduate work, followed by the publication of her memoir about that time and a fictional book(s?). Those achievements may well suffice to have one's own WP page but does it make her a 'notable forensic scientist'? I guess my question is what suffices to make someone 'notable' as a forensic scientist? Most of the other entries on the list appear to fulfill criteria for notability as outlined in WP:PEOPLE or WP:NLIST.

Ms. Koff may well be a perfectly fine forensic anthropologist and/or author but I don't think that she is in the same category as the others on that particular list. Still, it's a point for debate. Perhaps I am missing something here? If there is no rebuttal, I will be removing her entry from the list. — RB Ostrum. 17:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• [bump] Further to the above comments, if there is no rebuttal or dissent I will be removing this person from the list of notable forensic scienists. — RB Ostrum. 20:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• • 6 more months, no discussion or rebuttal. Done. — RB Ostrum. 01:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Subdivisions

Is there a term for 'historical forensics'? Such as what colour were Lincoln's eyes or how tall Julius Caesar was? I don't think either have any historical evidence, but other historical facts that may be in dispute could use logic to find the truth.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Eyewitness testimony

This important and controversial area does not seem to be addressed Samtaylorcoleridge (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• You could always try Eyewitness testimony or Eyewitness identification. — RB Ostrum. 00:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Notable forensic scientists

I will strongly suggest that the paragraph "Notable forensic scientists" is removed. It is highly irrelevant and very subjective. There exists a well of very notable forensic scientists that have contributed to the community far more than many on the list, both in present time and in a historically perspective. I will consider to remove it. It is seems a political statement rather than a well funded list. Please give any comments to my section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.160.174.55 (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Education & Research

Why do we not find Jose Almiralls group at DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY AND BIOCHEMISTRY AND INTERNATIONAL FORENSIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE mentioned as a education and research group? That is probably the only American institute at the moment that have some real contributions to the forensic science community other than DNA-research.

Please go to http://www2.fiu.edu/~almirall/

Education & Research

Why do we not find Jose Almiralls group at DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY AND BIOCHEMISTRY AND INTERNATIONAL FORENSIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE mentioned as a education and research group? That is probably the only American institute at the moment that have some real contributions to the forensic science community other than DNA-research.

Please go to http://www2.fiu.edu/~almirall/