Multi-technique comparison of source and primary transfer soil samples: An experimental investigation by D Croft and K Pye [1]. A Comment

Science and Justice - Journal of the Forensic Science Society

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 173-176

  Bull, P A ^a   Morgan, R M ^a   Dunkerley, S ^a   Wilson, H E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CRIME; GEOLOGY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PARTICLE SIZE; RELIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SOIL ANALYSIS; CHEMICAL COMPOSITION; COLOR; LETTER; SAMPLING;

CARBON; NITROGEN;

EID: 3142710466     PISSN: 13550306     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Croft DJ and Pye K. Multi-technique comparison of source and primary transfer soil samples: an experimental investigation. Science & Justice 2004; 44(1): 21-28.
2. Saferstein R. Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2001.
3. Brown T. Going to Ground. Police Review 2000, (4th February Edition): 18-20.
4. Lombardi G. The Contribution of Forensic Geology and Other Trace Evidence Analysis to the Investigation of the Killing of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1999; 44(3): 634-642.
5. Rapp JS. Forensic Geology and a Colusa County murder. California Geology 1987: 147-153.
6. Junger EP. Assessing the unique characteristics of close-proximity soil samples: just how useful is soil evidence? Journal of Forensic Sciences 1996; 41(1): 27-34.
7. Wanogho S and Caddy B. A Statistical Method for Assessing Soil Comparisons. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1985; 30(3): 864-873.
8. Hunter JR, et al. Forensic Archaeology, forensic anthropology and human rights in Europe. Science & Justice 2001; 41(3): 173-178.
9. Mildenhall DC. Forensic Palynology in New Zealand. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 1990; 64: 227-234.
10. Cengiz S, Cengiz Karaca A, Cakir I, Bulent Uner H and Sevindik A. SEM-EDS analysis and discrimination of forensic soil. Forensic Science International 2004; 141: 33-37.
11. Sugita R and Marumo Y. Validity of colour examination for forensic soil identification. Forensic Science International 1996; 83: 201-210.
12. Chazottes V, Brocard C and Peyrot B. Particle size analysis of soils under simulated scene of crime conditions: the interest of multivariate analyses. Forensic Science International 2004; 140: Issues 2-3: 159-166.
13. Wilson HE. Chemical and textural analysis of soils and sediments in forensic investigations. University of London, 2004, PhD Thesis.
14. Jarvis KE, Wilson HE and James SL. Assessing element variability in small soil samples taken during forensic investigation. In: Pye K and Croft DJ (eds). Forensic Geoscience: Principles, Techniques and Applications. Geological Society Special Publication. London: The Geological Society Publishing House, 2004. In Press.
15. Cho A. Fingerprinting is not a science. Available at http://sciencenow. org/cgi/content/full/2002/111/1 (2002)
16. Randerson J and Coghlan A. Forensic Evidence Stands Accused. New Scientist 31st January 2004; 6-7.
17. Ede R. Wrongful convictions put forensic science in the dock. The Times Tuesday 3rd February 2004 Law 3.
18. Cwiklik C. An Evaluation of the Significance of Transfers of Debris: Criteria for Association and Exclusion. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1999; 44(6): 1136-1150.
19. Horrocks M and Walsh K. Forensic Palynology: assessing the value of the evidence. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 1998; 103: 69-74.
20. Bryant VM Jr, Jones JG and Mildenhall DC. Forensic Palynology in the United States of America. Palynology 1990; 14: 193-208.