How to kill with a ballpoint: Credibility in Dutch forensic science

Science Technology and Human Values

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 52-75

  Bal, Roland ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Ballpoint (murder) case; Boundary work; Forensic science

Indexed keywords

EID: 11244334673     PISSN: 01622439     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0162243904270722     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Appelate Court of The Hague. 1996. Nederlandse Jurisprudentie. No. 441.
2. Caudill, D.S. 2001. Law and science: An essay on links and socio-natural hybrids. Syracuse Law Review 51:841-62.
3. _. 2002. Ethnography and the idealized accounts of science in the law. San Diego Law Review 39:269-305.
4. Cole, S. 2001. Suspect identities: A history of fingerprinting and criminal identification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. Collins, H. 1985. Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.
6. Crombag, H. F. M. 2000. Rechters & deskundigen. Nederlands Juristenblad 75 (33): 1659-65.
7. Daubert vs. Merell Dow. 1993. 92-102 Sup. Ct. June 28.
8. de Villiers, J. C., and D. Sevel. 1975. Intracarnial complications of transorbital stab wounds. British Journal of Ophthamology 59:52-56.
9. Dingley, A. M. 1999. The ballpoint case: A Wigmorean analysis. In Complex cases, edited by M. Malsch and J. F. Nijboer. Amsterdam: Tela Thesis.
10. Drukker, J., and J. C. Jansen. 1975. Compendium anatomie I. Tekst enfiguren. Lochern, the Netherlands: De Tijdstroom.
11. Edmond, G. 2001. The law-set: The legal-scientific production of medical propriety. Science, Technology & Human Values 26 (2): 191-226.
12. _. 2002. Legal engineering: Contested representations of law, science (and non-science) and society. Social Studies of Science 32 (3): 371-412.
13. Edmond, G., and D. Mercer. 1999. The politics of jury competence. In Technology and Public Participation, edited by B. Martin. Wollongong, Australia: University of Wollongon, Department of Science and Technology Studies.
14. _. 2000. Litigation life: Law-science knowledge construction in (benedictin) mass toxic tort litigation. Social Studies of Science 30 (2): 265-316.
15. Feteris, E. T. 1999. What went wrong in the ballpoint case? An argumentative analysis and evaluation of the discussion in the ballpoint case. In Complex cases, edited by M. Maisch and J. F. Nijboer. Amsterdam: Tela Thesis.
16. Ficq, B. L. M., and C. A. M. J. Raymakers. 1996. Pleitaantekeningen ter gelegenheid van pro forma behandeling, tevens toelichting op verzoek tot opheffing voorlopige hechtenis. Den Haag, the Netherlands: Gerechtshof.
17. Frijda, L. 1992. Over dubieuze zaken en oppervlakkige, domme rechters. Delikt en Delinkwent 22 (7): 662-72.
18. Geradts, Z. J. M. H., G. A. L. Dofferhoff, and R. Visser. 1996. Rapport betreffende de opdracht van de Rechter Commissaris Mr G. C. Haverkate in de zaak met de verdachte R.J. Terwiel met betrekking tot een onderzoek van BIC-balpennen en kruisbogen. Rijswijk, the Netherlands: Gerechtelijk Laboratorium.
19. Gieryn, T. F. 1999. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Groeneveld, E. R. 2000. Speurkunsten wetenschap: Instrumenten voorde knappe strafrechter. In Criminalistiek, forensische deskundigen en strafrechtspleging, edited by K. Boonen, A. C. t. Hart, and T. A. d. Roos. Deventer, the Netherlands: Gouda Quint.
21. Henket, M. M. 1997. Omgaan met de feiten. Opmerkingen naar aanleiding van de Leidse Balpenzaak. In Op goede gronden, edited by E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, H. J. Plug, and J. A. Pontier. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Ars Aequi Libri.
22. Huber, P. W. 1990. Pathological science in court. Daedalus 119 (4): 97-118.
23. _. 1991. Galileo's revenge: Junk science in the courtroom. New York: Basic Books.
24. Jasanoff, S. 1995. Science at the bar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25. _. 1997. Judging science: Issues, assumptions, models. Paper presented at the 1997 Forum for State Court Judges, July 19, 1997.
26. _. 1998. The eye of everyman: Wittnessing DNA in the Simpson trial. Social Studies of Science 28 (5-6): 713-40.
27. _. 2000. Judicial fictions: The Supreme Court's quest for good science. Paper presented at Demarcation Socialised, August 24-27, 2000, at Cardiff University.
28. _. 2001. Judicial fictions: The Supreme Court's quest for good science. Society 38 (4): 27-36.
29. _. 2002. Science and the statistical victim: Modernizing knowledge in breast implant litigation. Social Studies of Science 32 (1): 37-69.
30. Jordan, K., and M. Lynch. 1998. The dissemination, standardisation and routinization of a molecular biological technique. Social Studies of Science 28 (5-6): 773-800.
31. Junker, K. W., ed. 1999. Law and Science 13 (2): 95-234.
32. Kaptein, H. J. R. 1997. Pennen als dodelijke wapens? Over criminele klok- en klepelkunde en een (logische?) kloof tussen feiten en recht. In Op goede gronden, edited by E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, H. J. Plug, and J. A. Pontier. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Ars Aequi Libri.
33. Leistra, G. 1995a. Dood door Bic-pen. Perfecte moord met kruisboog, of tragisch ongeval? Elsevier, November 25.
34. _. 1995b. Rechtsdwaling of gerechtigheid? Nieuwe feiten rond de 'balpen-moord'. Elsevier, December 23.
35. Lynch, M. 1998. The discursive production of uncertainty: The OJ Simpson "dream team" and the sociology of knowledge machine. Social Studies of Science 28 (5-6): 829-68.
36. Lynch, M., and S. Jasanoff. 1998. Contested identities: Science, law and forensic practice. Social Studies of Science 28 (5-6): 675-86.
37. M'charek, A. 2000. Technologies of population: Forensic DNA practices and the making of differences and similarities. Configurations 8:121-58.
38. Nijboer, J. F. 1997. Over een balpen en een voorbeeldige voetballer. In Op goede gronden, edited by E. T. Feteris, H. Kloosterhuis, H. J. Plug, and J. A. Pontier. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Ars Aequi Libri.
39. Nijboer, J. F., and A. Sennef. 1999. Justification. In Complex cases, edited by M. Maisch and J. F. Nijboer. Amsterdam: Tela Thesis.
40. Ombudsman. 1993. Rapport balpenzaak. The Hague, the Netherlands: Ombudsman.
41. Rompen, J. C., M. F. Meek, and M. V. van Andel. 2000. A cause Célèbre: The so-called "ball-point murder." Journal of Forensic Science 45 (5): 1144-47.
42. Sanders, J. 1998. Benediction on trial: A study of mass tort litigation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
43. Smith, R., and B. Wynne, eds. 1989. Expert evidence: Interpreting science in the law. London: Routledge.
44. Solomon, S. M., and E. J. Hackett. 1996. The juridical construction of "scientific validity": Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Science, Technology, & Human Values 21:131-56.
45. Supreme Court of the Netherlands. 1998. Nederlandse Jurisprudentie. Number 404. January 27. te Meerman, G. 1996. Wie nog rept van balpenmoord moet met bewijs komen. De Volkskrant, February 29.
46. Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal, vergaderjaar. 1996-1997. 23 251, No. 16, 3.
47. van Andel, M. V., J. Lubbers, M. de Vries, D. Huizinga, and G. Kors. 1995. Rapport proef penetratie BIC-pennen in geprepareerde schedel. Groningen, the Netherlands: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
48. van Andel, P. 1994. Anatomy of the unsought finding. Serendipity: Origins, history, domains, traditions, appearances, patterns and programmability. The British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 45 (2): 631-48.
49. _. 1996. Een dodelijke pen, NRC Handelsblad, February 10.
50. van Calmthout, M. 1996. Quasi-onderzoek zegt niets over balpenmoord. De Volkskrant, February 24.
51. van der Pol, J. P. 1996. Verslag aangaande de aard van het letsel dat heeft geleid tot het overlijden van mevrouw M. V. de Meijere, geboren 23 maart 1938 en dood aangetroffen op 26 mei 1991, Bussum, the the Netherlands.
52. van der Veer, B. A., and A. Sennef. 1999. Case descriptions. In Complex cases, edited by M. Maisch and J. F. Nijboer. Amsterdam: Tela Thesis.
53. van Duinen, M. Th. A. 2000. The transorbital intracranial penetrating injury. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Acadamic.
54. van Kampen, P. T. C. 1998. Expert evidence compared: Rules and practices in the Dutch and American criminal justice system. Antwerpen en Groningen, the Netherlands: Intersentia Rechtswetenschappen.
55. _. 2000. De positie van het Gerechtelijk Laboratorium: Onafhankelijkheid in meer perspectieven. In Criminalistiek, forensische deskundigen en strafrechtspleging, edited by K. Boonen, A. C. t. Hart, and T. A. d. Roos. Deventer, the Netherlands: Gouda Quint.
56. Visser, R. 1994. Brief aan J. Molenaar, districtschef politie Leiden-Voorschoten (Letter to J. Molenaar, chief of police, Leiden- Voorschoten). Rijswijk, the Netherlands. November 10.
57. _. 1996. Letter to Van der Horst, with comments on the report by J. P. van der Pol. January 15.
58. Weijmar Schultz, W., P. van Andel, I. Sabelis, and E. Mooyaart. 1999. Magnetic resonance imaging of male and female genitals during coitus and female sexual arousal. British Medical Journal 319 (7225): 1596-99.
59. Worst, J. F. G. 1992. Rapport inzake het overlijden, op 26 mei 1991, van Mevrouw M.V.Terwielde Meijere. Groningen, the Netherlands. June 19.
60. Wynne, B. 1989. Establishing the rules of law: Constructing expert authority. In Expert evidence, edited by R. Smith and B. Wynne. London: Routledge.