Criminal and Environmental Soil Forensics

Criminal and Environmental Soil Forensics

Karl Ritz • Lorna Dawson • David Miller Editors

Criminal and Environmental Soil Forensics

Editors Karl Ritz National Soil Resources Institute Natural Resources Department School of Applied Sciences Cranfield University Cranfield Bedfordshire MK43 0AL UK

Lorna Dawson The Macaulay Institute Craigiebuckler Aberdeen AB 15 8QH UK

David Miller The Macaulay Institute Craigiebuckler Aberdeen AB15 8QH UK

ISBN 978-1-4020-9203-9

e-ISBN 978-1-4020-9204-6

Library of Congress Control Number: 2008937475 © 2009 Springer Science + Business Media B.V. No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Cover images (top left to bottom right): Lidar image of a search area; sampling soil from shoe impression at crime scene; optical laser scan of footprint impression in sand; polished section of concrete; trace evidence from urban soil including glass fibres embedded in aggregates; trace evidence from soil including pollen grain. Images all derived from material in this volume. Printed on acid-free paper springer.com

Foreword

Having crossed Hadrian’s Wall at Carlisle for the short journey from England into Scotland needed to present as guest speaker before the 2007 Soil Forensics Conference in Edinburgh, so capably organised by the Macaulay Institute, it was kind of Professor Karl Ritz from Cranfield University to invite me to follow up observations made there with a foreword to the resulting book; this fabulous compendium of ground-breaking, international science emerging from your important, biennial conference. As the articles following show, it is a fast-moving science but one taking many different forms and routes, in many different places around the world; places where climate, topography, ecosystems and even cultures vary hugely. However, amongst all that diversity of physical context or intellectual effort, the influence of the soil is the one common scientific denominator, whilst its application to criminal cases of homicide and unlawful killing, a recurrent reminder of man’s inhumanity to man, is naturally pre-eminent. The first, encouraging counterpoint to those grim atrocities against which forensic science is so often deployed is found in magnificent human ingenuity, as it builds remorselessly upon one scientific progression or invention after another to construct reliable mosaic pictures of the past out of whatever fragmentary remains are left us in the present, fit to persuade a court. The second is that universal thirst for justice which drives everyone engaged in the investigative and court process (police officers, forensic scientists, lawyers and ordinary citizens alike) to excavate answers out of those who would bury wickedness. What my own offering to the conference was about (‘March of the Gladiators – Scientists entering the Arena of Lawyers’) were gentle words of caution from a former criminal litigator, linked to the dangers from false positives. Those fields of forensics applied in police work are of course far wider than just soil-based (my Police Authority providing a typical example, as recent signatory to a novel 14-force/authority consortium across England & Wales, buying-in a whole range of forensic science ‘packages’ to support criminal investigation). There are valuable cautionary tales to be had here from the unfortunate experiences of others, presenting forensic evidence before the stern scrutiny of courts, whether from the fallibility of fingerprints or what dangers lie in DNA.

v

vi

Foreword

The bottom line was simple – do not expect the courts to receive your findings with uncritical gratitude or the mild controversy of academia. (After all, the life, liberty and reputations of real people hang on your words). But, if your scientific and personal integrity take utter objectivity and self-critical rigour as their companion guardian angels, then you may yet be able to withstand the formalised assault which surely will – and perfectly properly – be launched in the courtroom against your findings and opinions. (Don’t forget, a challenge potentially to be maintained – on and off – for several years thereafter). Your vital role as experts for the administration of justice is invaluable, much appreciated and growing, but do not expect the honour of this arduous responsibility to be afforded you more easily than any other participant, or indeed (citing the tragic, historical example of Sir Bernard Spilsbury) to be provided you as convenient vehicle for winning personal and professional glory. Neither are our scientific colleagues the sole audience for the deep science found within this book. If the Oxford dictionary defines ‘symbiotic’ as the adjective applying to “a close association of two interdependent animal or plant species, persons or groups”, then those distinguished crime writers also present at the conference were evidence of just such an arrangement; keen as they obviously are to keep up with every last development and weave it into their latest plot no sooner than scientists have announced it. Not only was it great pleasure to share a table at Conference with such charming and learned scientific folk as Professor Karl Ritz, Professor David Miller or Dr Lorna Dawson, it was also a privilege to be able to debate there in person with celebrated writers like Ian Rankin, whose ‘Inspector Rebus’ books are so firmly Scottish but win an international following. Why, having spent most of the conference apologising widely for being a lawyer (one who has – in his time and as an advocate – commissioned, championed, challenged, tested or actually found the forensic evidence relied upon in criminal cases), it gives genuine relief now to claim my attendance there was really made as some sort of writer instead. Happily, since the publication of Mosaic (The Pavement that Walked) – the novel by Clive Ashman1 – I can. This fictionalised reconstruction of the biggest unsolved crime-cum-art-theft in British archaeology (the overnight theft from post-war Yorkshire, in 1948, of a Roman mosaic floor first found in 1941 then left carefully wrapped in alluvial soil ‘till archaeologists could return and prepare it for lifting seven years later) makes it no longer impertinent to claim membership of that happy band. Its plot also offers me points in common to debate with all those field archaeologists which so many forensic soil scientists turn out to be when you scratch them, all those plant biologists who had confined themselves to reconstructing the landscape of ancient Britain from a drilled-out earth core, until that fateful day when they were called out by the police to a scene of crime for the very first time. To every reader, however you got here and whatever your motivation for taking up and opening “Criminal & Environmental Soil Forensics”, let me commend to

1

Voreda Books, 2008. ISBN 9780955639807. [email protected]

Foreword

vii

you a book that captures the very latest research from all over the world. A learning to be applied diligently and built upon carefully, to bring to justice the most intolerable forms of human wrong-doing imaginable. To be applied in the honest belief that – wherever in the world they are – the greater the deterrence that exists for the potential wrong-doer; the greater the grinding certainty for those that really do go on to offend of facing successful detection, prosecution, conviction and detention; then the greater the likelihood for the rest of us of delivering a time of reckoning which can respect the deceased, salve the bereaved and reassure all our communities of their future safety. Clive Alcock LLB Solicitor Chief Executive, Cumbria Police Authority June 2008 [email protected]

Preface

Soils are present on the outermost layer of the Earth’s terrestrial landmass and as such cover a large (but declining) proportion of the planetary surface, playing a pivotal role in the functioning of the contemporary Earth system. Human civilisations are irrevocably bound to them, as they serve as a platform for habitation, and are literally fundamental to food, fibre and fuel production, provide a source of raw materials and act as an archaeological repository. Soils also provide a wider range of ecosystem goods and services, supporting all terrestrial habitats, cycling carbon and nutrient elements, storing and purifying water, acting as a biodiversity reservoir, and regulating atmospheric gases. Soils are amongst the most complex of known systems. Surface soils comprise a diverse mixture of inorganic and organic materials which are physically structured in a heterogeneous but characteristic manner across some twelve orders of magnitude, from micrometres to megametres. The biomass that they support belowground, which is predominantly microbial, significantly exceeds that aboveground. Subsoils, and the interface with the bedrock (the regolith), are less complex but also have characteristic properties and geographic distribution, as does the fundamental geology. Soil science has advanced a great deal in the past two decades, and we know increasingly more about the distribution and properties of soils, how they function, and the significance of their fundamental importance. Ironically, the increasing urbanisation of current civilisation, and reduced connections with farming and food production, is resulting in a progressive decline in the appreciation of the importance of soil by the majority of the populace. Yet, humans interact with soils wittingly for sound reasons, and sometimes unwittingly when operating nefariously. The variety in the constitution, distribution and function of soils provides an intriguing basis, and great potential, for research and application in a forensic context. Their analysis and interpretation can provide intelligence, insight and evidence in the forensic arena at a wide range of scales. This volume, based upon contributions to the Second International Conference on Environmental and Criminal Soil Forensics, held in Edinburgh in 2007, explores the conceptual and practical interplay of soils across scientific disciplines, and investigative and legal spectra. The 32 chapters that follow show that the increasing convergence of a wide range of knowledge and application is leading to a thriving collaboration across disciplines ix

x

Preface

of criminal and environmental soil forensics, with common perspectives but complementary approaches. The chapters have been grouped broadly into five themes: concepts, evidence, geoforensics, taphonomy and technology. However, the interdisciplinary nature of much of the material means that such apparently discrete structuring should only be used as a guideline. This challenge when aimiing to organise the material in a simple manner implies to us as editors that soil forensics is indeed a discipline that is starting to mature. July 2008

Karl Ritz, Lorna Dawson, and David Miller

All material in the chapters is the responsibility of the respective authors, and any views expressed therein do not necessarily represent those of the editors, their organisations or the publisher.

Acknowledgements

A volume that contains such diverse material as this one requires input, effort and support from many people over and above the 97 authors. We sincerely thank the cadre of independent experts who graciously gave their time and provided insightful and thoroughly professional reviews of the chapters. We gratefully acknowledge the superb professional support from Maryse Walsh and Melanie van Overbeek at Springer. We particularly thank Jane Morrice for her excellent assistance in editing and proof-reading the book contents. Thanks are also given to the Macaulay Institute and Cranfield University for their institutional support in the running of the Second International Conference on Environmental and Criminal Soil Forensics in 2007, and in the preparation of this book.

xi

Contents

Foreword .........................................................................................................

v

Preface .............................................................................................................

ix

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................

xi

Colour Plates ..................................................................................................

xxv

Part I 1

2

3

4

5

6

Concepts

“Soils Ain’t Soils”: Context and Issues Facing Soil Scientists in a Forensic World ................................................................. J. Robertson

3

Expert Scientific Evidence in Court: The Legal Considerations ....................................................................... D.P. Auchie

13

Some Thoughts on the Role of Probabilistic Reasoning in the Evaluation of Evidence ............................................................................ C.G.G. Aitken

33

Microbial Community Profiling for the Characterisation of Soil Evidence: Forensic Considerations............................................. G.F. Sensabaugh

49

The Current Status of Forensic Soil Examination in the Russian Federation ........................................................................ O. Gradusova and E. Nesterina

61

Characterisation and Discrimination of Urban Soils: Preliminary Results from The Soil Forensics University Network ..... A. Morrisson, S. McColl, L.A. Dawson and M. Brewer

75

xiii

xiv

7

Contents

Environmental Considerations for Common Burial Site Selection after Pandemic Events........................................................... A. Williams, T. Temple, S.J. Pollard, R.J.A. Jones and K. Ritz

Part II 8

9

10

11

12

87

Evidence

A Systematic Approach to Soil Forensics: Criminal Case Studies Involving Transference from Crime Scene to Forensic Evidence .............................................................................. R.W. Fitzpatrick, M.D. Raven and S.T. Forrester

105

Forensic Ecology, Botany and Palynology: Some Aspects of Their Role in Criminal Investigation ................................................... P.E.J. Wiltshire

129

Sediment and Soil Environmental Forensics: What Do We Know? .............................................................................. S.M. Mudge

151

Petrography and Geochemical Analysis for the Forensic Assessment of Concrete Damage .......................................................... I. Fernandes, M.A.T.M. Broekmans and F. Noronha

163

Tracing Soil and Groundwater Pollution with Electromagnetic Profiling and Geo-Electrical Investigations ............ K. Martens and K. Walraevens

181

Geoforensics 13

Locating Concealed Homicide Victims: Developing the Role of Geoforensics ........................................................................ M. Harrison and L.J. Donnelly

14

Geological Trace Evidence: Forensic and Legal Perspectives............ A. Keaney, A. Ruffell and J. McKinley

15

New Observations on the Interactions Between Evidence and the Upper Horizons of the Soil ...................................................... I. Hanson, J. Djohari, J. Orr, P. Furphy, C. Hodgson, G. Cox and G. Broadbridge

16

The Forensic Analysis of Sediments Recovered from Footwear ........ R.M. Morgan, J. Freudiger-Bonzon, K.H. Nichols, T. Jellis, S. Dunkerley, P. Zelazowski and P.A. Bull

197

221

239

253

Contents

17

18

19

xv

Using Soil and Groundwater Data to Understand Resistivity Surveys over a Simulated Clandestine Grave...................................... J.R. Jervis, J.K. Pringle, J.P. Cassella and G. Tuckwell Spatial Thinking in Search Methodology: A Case Study of the ‘No Body Murder Enquiry’, West of Ireland ........................... J. McKinley, A. Ruffell, M. Harrison, W. Meier-Augenstein, H. Kemp, C. Graham and L. Barry Localisation of a Mass Grave from the Nazi Era: A Case Study .......................................................................................... S. Fiedler, J. Berger, K. Stahr and M. Graw

Part III

Research in Forensic Taphonomy: A Soil-Based Perspective ............ M. Tibbett and D.O. Carter

21

Can Temperature Affect the Release of Ninhydrin-Reactive Nitrogen in Gravesoil Following the Burial of a Mammalian (Rattus rattus) Cadaver? ........................................................................ D.O. Carter, D. Yellowlees and M. Tibbett

23

24

303

317

333

Taphonomic Changes to the Buried Body in Arid Environments: An Experimental Case Study in Peru ........................ R.C. Janaway, A.S. Wilson, G. Caprio Díaz and S. Guillen

341

Decomposition Studies Using Animal Models in Contrasting Environments: Evidence From Temporal Changes in Soil Chemistry and Microbial Activity ............................ K.L. Stokes, S.L. Forbes, L.A. Benninger, D.O. Carter and M. Tibbett

357

Microbial Community Analysis of Human Decomposition on Soil............................................................................ R.A. Parkinson, K.-R. Dias, J. Horswell, P. Greenwood, N. Banning, M. Tibbett and A.A. Vass

Part IV 25

285

Taphonomy

20

22

271

379

Technology

Analysis of Soils in a Forensic Context: Comparison of Some Current and Future Options....................................................... G.S. Walker

397

xvi

26

27

28

29

30

31

Contents

Automated SEM-EDS (QEMSCAN®) Mineral Analysis in Forensic Soil Investigations: Testing Instrumental Reproducibility ....................................................................................... D. Pirrie, M.R. Power, G.K. Rollinson, P.E.J. Wiltshire, J. Newberry and H.E. Campbell

411

Rapid, Reliable and Reviewable Mineral Identification with Infrared Microprobe Analysis...................................................... B.A. Weinger, J.A. Reffner and P.R. De Forest

431

Preservation and Analysis of Three-Dimensional Footwear Evidence in Soils: The Application of Optical Laser Scanning ......... M.R. Bennett, D. Huddart and S. Gonzalez

445

Discrimination of Domestic Garden Soils Using Plant Wax Compounds as Markers ........................................................................ R.W. Mayes, L.M. Macdonald, J.M. Ross and L.A. Dawson

463

Environmental Forensic Investigations: The Potential Use of a Novel Heavy Metal Sensor and Novel Taggants........................... P. Pollard, M. Adams, P.K.J. Robertson, K. Christidis, S. Officer, G.R. Prabhu, K. Gow and A.R. Morrisson Separation and Concentration of Trace Evidence from Soils Using a Hydropneumatic Elutriation Trace Evidence Concentrator (TEC)............................................................................... A.J.M. Smucker and J.A. Siegel

Part V 32

477

491

Postscript

Soils in Forensic Science: Underground Meets Underworld ............. A.D. Barclay, L.A. Dawson, L.J. Donnelly, D.R. Miller and K. Ritz

501

Index ................................................................................................................

515

Contributors

Morgan Adams Centre for Research in Energy and Environment, The Robert Gordon University, Schoolhill, Aberdeen AB10 1FR, UK Colin Aitken School of Mathematics, The University of Edinburgh, James Clerk Maxwell Building, The King’s Buildings, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK Derek Auchie Law Department, The Robert Gordon University, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen AB10 7QE, UK Natasha Banning The Centre for Land Rehabilitation, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia David Barclay Caorainn, Laide IV22 2NP, UK Lorraine Barry School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University, Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK Matthew Bennett School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole BH12 5BB, UK Laura Benninger Faculty of Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000 Simcoe St N, Oshawa ON, L1H 7K4, Canada Jochen Berger Institute for Soil Science and Land Evaluation, University of Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Strasse 27, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany

xvii

xviii

Contributors

Mark Brewer Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland, The Macaulay Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK Gemma Broadbridge Centre for Forensic Sciences, Centre for Archaeology, Anthropology and Heritage, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth BH12 5BB, UK Maarten Broekmans Geological Survey of Norway, Department of Industrial Minerals and Ores, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway Peter Bull Oxford University Centre for the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK Holly Campbell Helford Geoscience LLP, Menallack Farm, Treverva, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9BP, UK Gerardo Carpio - Diaz Centro Mallqui, Ilo, Peru David Carter Department of Entomology, College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resoruces, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, 202 Plant Industry Building, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA John Cassella Department of Forensic Science, Faculty of Sciences, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire ST4 2DE, UK Konstantinos Christidis Centre for Research in Energy and Environment, The Robert Gordon University, Schoolhill, Aberdeen AB10 1FR, UK Georgina Cox Centre for Forensic Sciences, Centre for Archaeology, Anthropology and Heritage, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth BH12 5BB, UK Lorna Dawson The Macaulay Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK Peter De Forest John Jay College of Criminal Justice/CUNY, 445 West 59th Street, New York, USA Kerith-Rae Dias The Centre for Forensic Science, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

Contributors

xix

Jessica Djohari Centre for Forensic Sciences, Centre for Archaeology, Anthropology and Heritage, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth BH12 5BB, UK Laurance Donnelly Halcrow Group Ltd., Deanway Technology Centre, Wilmslow Road, Handforth, Cheshire SK9 3FB, UK Sarah Dunkerley Oxford University Centre for the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK Isabel Fernandes Department and Centre of Geology, Faculty of Science, University of Porto, Rua do Campo Alegre 687, 4169-007 PORTO, Portugal Sabine Fiedler Institute for Soil Science and Land Evaluation, University of Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Strasse 27, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany Rob Fitzpatrick Centre for Australian Forensic Soil Science, CSIRO Land and Water, Private Bag No 2, Glen Osmond, South Australia Shari Forbes Faculty of Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000 Simcoe St N, Oshawa ON, L1H 7K4, Canada Sean Forrester Centre for Australian Forensic Soil Science, CSIRO Land and Water, Private Bag No 2, Glen Osmond, South Australia Jeanne Freudiger-Bonzon Faculty of Geosciences and the Environment, University of Lausanne, Switzerland Patricia Furphy Centre for Forensic Sciences, Centre for Archaeology, Anthropology and Heritage, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth BH12 5BB, UK Silvia Gonzalez School of Biological and Earth Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool, L3 3AF, UK Kenneth Gow Centre for Research in Energy and Environment, The Robert Gordon University, Schoolhill, Aberdeen AB10 1FR, UK

xx

Contributors

Olga Gradusova Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Research, Building 2, Khokhlovsky Lane 13, 109028 Moscow, Russian Federation Conor Graham School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK Matthias Graw Institute of Legal Medicine, University of Munich, Nußbaumstrasse 26, 80336 Munich, Germany Paul Greenwood The Centre for Land Rehabilitation, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia Sonia Guillen Centro Mallqui, Ilo, Peru Ian Hanson Centre for Forensic Sciences, Centre for Archaeology, Anthropology and Heritage, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth BH12 5BB, UK Mark Harrison National Policing Improvement Agency, Wyboston Lakes, Great North Road Wyboston, Bedfordshire MK44 3AL, UK Claire Hodgson Centre for Forensic Sciences, Centre for Archaeology, Anthropology and Heritage, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth BH12 5BB, UK Jacqui Horswell The Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited (ESR), Kenepuru Science Centre, Porirua, New Zealand David Huddart School of Biological and Earth Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool, L3 3AF, UK Robert Janaway Archaeological Sciences, School of Life Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD7 1DP, UK Thomas Jellis Oxford University Centre for the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK

Contributors

John Jervis Applied and Environmental Geophysics Group, School of Physical Sciences and Geography, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK Robert Jones National Soil Resources Institute, Natural Resources Department, School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, UK Antoinette Keaney School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK Helen Kemp Stable lsotope Laboratory, Scottish Crop Research Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee DD2 5DA, UK Lynne Macdonald The Macaulay Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK Kristine Martens Laboratory of Applied Geology and Hydrogeology, Gent University, Krijgslaan 281 – S8, B-9000 Gent, Belgium Robert Mayes The Macaulay Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK Suzzanne McColl School of Biomolecular Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK Jennifer McKinley School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK Wolfram Meier-Augenstein Stable lsotope Laboratory, Scottish Crop Research Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee DD2 5DA, UK David Miller The Macaulay Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK Ruth Morgan UCL Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, 2nd Floor Brook House, Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HN, UK Andrew Morrisson School of Life Sciences, The Robert Gordon University, St Andrews Street, Aberdeen AB25 1HG, UK

xxi

xxii

Contributors

Stephen Mudge School of Ocean Sciences, Bangor University, Menai Bridge LL59 5AB, UK Ekaterina Nesterina Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Research, Building 2, Khokhlovsky Lane 13, 109028 Moscow, Russian Federation Julia Newberry Department of Natural and Social Sciences, University of Gloucestershire, Swindon Road, Cheltenham GL50 4AZ, UK Katharine Nichols Oxford University Centre for the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK Fernando Noronha Department and Centre of Geology, Faculty of Science, University of Porto, Rua do Campo Alegre 687, 4169-007 PORTO, Portugal Simon Officer Centre for Research in Energy and Environment, The Robert Gordon University, Schoolhill, Aberdeen AB10 1FR, UK Jennifer Orr Centre for Forensic Sciences, Centre for Archaeology, Anthropology and Heritage, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth BH12 5BB, UK Rachel Parkinson The Institute of Environmental Science and Research Limited (ESR), Kenepuru Science Centre, Porirua, New Zealand Duncan Pirrie Helford Geoscience LLP, Menallack Farm, Treverva, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9BP, UK Pat Pollard Centre for Research in Energy and Environment, The Robert Gordon University, Schoolhill, Aberdeen AB10 1FR, UK Simon Pollard Sustainable Systems Department, School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, UK Matthew Power Intellection UK Ltd, North Wales Business Park, Abergele LL22 8LJ, UK Gopala Prabhu Centre for Research in Energy and Environment, The Robert Gordon University, Schoolhill, Aberdeen AB10 1FR, UK

Contributors

xxiii

Jamie Pringle Applied and Environmental Geophysics Group, School of Physical Sciences and Geography, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK Mark Raven Centre for Australian Forensic Soil Science, CSIRO Land and Water Private Bag No 2, Glen Osmond, South Australia John Reffner John Jay College of Criminal Justice/CUNY, 445 West 59th Street, New York, USA Karl Ritz National Soil Resources Institute, Natural Resources Department, School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, UK Peter Robertson Centre for Research in Energy and Environment, The Robert Gordon University, Schoolhill, Aberdeen AB10 1FR, UK James Robertson Australian Federal Police, GPO Box 401, ACT 2601, Australia Gavyn Rollinson Camborne School of Mines, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9EZ, UK Jasmine Ross The Macaulay Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK Alastair Ruffell School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK George Sensabaugh School of Public Health, 50 University Hall, MC# 7360, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA Jay Siegel Forensic and Investigative Sciences, Indiana and Purdue Universities, 402 N Blackford Street, LD 326, Indianapolis IN, USA Alvin Smucker Soil Biophysics, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan MI, USA Karl Stahr Institute for Soil Science and Land Evaluation, University of Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Strasse 27, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany

xxiv

Contributors

Kathryn Stokes Centre for Forensic Science, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley 6009, Australia Tracey Temple Department of Applied Science, Security and Resilience, Defence Academy of the UK, Cranfield University, Shrivenham SN6 8LA, UK Mark Tibbett Centre for Land Rehabilitation, School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009, Australia George Tuckwell Stats Limited, Porterswood House, St Albans, Hertfordshire AL3 6PO, UK Arpad Vass Oak Ridge National Laboratory, PO Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA Stewart Walker Forensic and Analytical Chemistry, School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, South Australia 5001, Australia Kristine Walraevens Laboratory of Applied Geology and Hydrogeology, Gent University, Krijgslaan 281 – S8, B-9000 Gent, Belgium Brooke Weinger John Jay College of Criminal Justice/CUNY, 445 West 59th Street, New York, USA Anna Williams Department of Applied Science, Security and Resilience, Defence Academy of the UK, Cranfield University, Shrivenham SN6 8LA, UK Andrew Wilson Archaeological Sciences, School of Life Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD7 1DP, UK Patricia Wiltshire Department of Geography and Environment, University of Aberdeen, Elphinstone Road, Aberdeen AB24 3UF, UK Przemyslaw Zelazowski Oxford University Centre for the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK

Colour Plates

Chap. 5 Fig. 1 Case study I. Soil micro-particles procured from site: (a) Overview of material: 1 – comparative sample; 2 – window sill; 3 – sweater of the victim (owner of the flat), 4 – suspect’s boots. (b) Fragment of cormophyte moss inside a soil micro-particle (left) and extracted from it (right). (c) Glass fibre fragments extracted from comparator samples. (d) Glass fibre fragments extracted from washed soil traces, taken from the sill, the sweater and the boots respectively. (e) Microparticles similar to paint fragments, taken from the comparative samples, the sill, the suspect’s sweater and the suspect’s boots

Chap. 5 Fig. 2 Case study II. (a) Trace evidence comprising globules of bituminous perlite after several stages of washing in chloroform. (b) Inner structure of one such perlite particle

xxvi

Colour Plates

Chap. 5 Fig. 3 Case study III. (a) Soil micro-aggregates with embedded glass fibres. (b) Glass fibres with Fe (III) hydroxide. (c) Calx, the source of iron in vivianite formation. (d) Fragments of bones, the source of phosphorus in vivianite formation. (e) Vivianite globule in a soil aggregate (left) and extracted from it (right)

Chap. 5 Fig. 4 Case study IV. Micro-particles procured from the corpse in this case. (a) Vivianite particles separated from soil traces obtained from the corpse. (b) Glass microspheres of fly ash inside (left two panels) and separated from (right) soil traces obtained from the corpse

Colour Plates

xxvii

Chap. 8 Fig. 1 The Hit-and-Run case study. (a) Schematic map showing locations, aspect, path taken by offender and sampling points with associated reference numbers; (b) overview of river bank, person standing at point where Sample CAFSS_027.5 taken; (c) close-up view of the soil surface near where a shoe impression matching the sole tread of the shoe worn by the offender

Chap. 8 Fig. 2 Soil samples associated with the hit-and-run case study. (a) Shoes from suspect; (b) sample scraped from the shoe; (c) control soil specimen from the river channel; (d) control soil specimen from the bank of river and (e) the 0.05). In this case, it was not possible to exclude the soil samples taken from the footwear from the soil samples taken from the badger sett site.

16

Analysis of Sediments from Footwear

261

Table 16.1 Quartz grain types identified in the soil samples taken from the crime scene and the boots Case samples Badger sett site

Right boot Left boot

Sub-sample 1 Sub-sample 2 Sub-sample 3 Sub-sample 4 Sub-sample 5 Sub-sample 6 Sub-sample 7 Sub-sample 8 Sub-sample 9 Sub-sample 10 Composite Composite Point 1 Point 2

Type I

Type II

Type III

Total

41 43 47 41 48 38 66 47 28 35 34 29 38 34

19 15 7 9 14 12 11 13 10 8 16 14 5 5

7 3 3 3 1 2 4 6 5 4 6 1 6 8

67 61 57 53 63 52 81 66 43 47 56 44 49 47

In order to come to a meaningful interpretation, it was necessary to take multiple samples (in this case 22 spot samples were able to be collected) from the sole of the footwear to compare with multiple samples (in this case 10 samples) taken from the bulk soil sample recovered from the badger sett site. It was not merely an analysis involving two comparator samples; over 30 samples were eventually analysed. It must also be stressed that this analysis represented only one strand of forensic investigation which itself utilised geoforensic results taken from independent techniques such as pollen analysis and this was undertaken by separate scientists who worked independently in this case. Various aspects of the complexity of the spatial distribution and movement of pre-, syn- and post-forensic event soil on the soles of footwear have been identified in these experimental and casework studies. Footwear often provides the starting point for geoforensic enquiry, but this work highlights the need for caution when making comparison between soil samples recovered from the soles of footwear and forensic sites. There is no such thing as simple comparison nor is there any philosophical basis for attempting to ‘match’ samples (Morgan and Bull 2007b; Bull et al. 2008).

Persistence of Trace Evidence on Footwear Experimental Studies The long-standing view that trace materials persist on clothing stems from the experimental works undertaken by Robertson and Roux (2000), Hicks et al. (1996) and Pounds and Smalldon (1975a, b, c) where studies have generally provided decay curves of 4 to 8 h duration. More recent work has sought to extend the experimental

262

R.M. Morgan et al.

decay curve timeline to hundreds of hours in an attempt to utilise the power of electron microscopy (Bull et al. 2006a). The experiments presented herein deal with the quantities of materials left on the soles of footwear over time, and the persistence of pollen particulates on the uppers of shoes over even longer periods of time. The obvious advantages of finding trace particulates on clothing and footwear many hours after their transfer at the relevant forensic event could be argued to be outweighed by the very problems of persistence where the picture is complicated by pre-, syn- and post-event mixing. These problems, similar to those described above, are best overcome with resort to visual identification methodologies.

The Persistence of Trace Materials on the Soles of Footwear Through Time An experimental study was undertaken to establish the nature of the persistence of siltsized trace materials on the soles of footwear over time. In order to quantify the amount of trace sediment present, a UV powder ( 6 cm per hammer stroke) Disturbed water and air budget Redoximorphic properties: Fe-/Mn-concretions: 0 = none, 1 = very few, 2 = few, 3 = common, 4 = many Fe-/Mn-mottles: 0 = none, 1 = very few, 2 = few, 3 = common, 4 = many Disturbed soil structure Description of aggregate shape Presence of foreign materials Abundance of anthropogenic artefacts (e.g., charcoal, bricks): 0 = none, 1 = few, 2 = common, 3 = many, 4 = abundant Irregular or invisible depth gradient: pH Estimated using indicator papers Carbonate concentration Reaction of carbonates with HCl was defined as follows: 0 = No detectable visible or audible effervescence 1 = Slightly calcareous: audible effervescence but not visible 2 = Moderately calcareous, visible effervescence 3 = Strongly calcareous: strong visible effervescence. Bubbles form a low foam 4 = Extremely calcareous: extremely strong reaction. Thick foam forms quickly Stone concentration Abundance of stones: 0 = none, 1 = few, 2 = common, 3 = many, 4 = abundant

points revealed redoximorphic properties (concretions and mottles). Charcoal, burnt clay brick residue and organic substances (at a depth of at least 50 cm) were also discovered in a small part of the area. The penetration depth, calculated from the soil depth, ranged between 35 and 100 cm, with a large part of the area exhibiting a medium to high degree of penetration resistance (estimated by the number of hammer strokes). Connected areas which had a lower degree of penetration resistance were found towards the north-eastern, eastern and south-western edges of the mapped area. In order for further conclusions to be drawn on the extent and cause (natural or anthropogenic) of the disturbances observed, the data obtained were further

19

Localisation of Mass Grave from the Nazi Era

309

processed in a Geographic Information System (GIS), ArcGIS 9.1 (ESRI Inc., Redlands, CA, USA, 2005). The selection of points with a high degree of disturbance was based on the combination of characteristics and distinctive features of the individual pore points. Of particular importance were: (1) penetration depth (the thickness of the solum), (2) penetration resistance, (3) occurrence of horizons with a thickness of >40 cm (i.e.