No abstract

No abstract

In this paper we advocate for the re‐establishment of the generalist role in forensic science systems in the form of a forensic advisor. The generalist can be defined as an individual possessing a broad scientific knowledge base coupled with comprehensive knowledge of forensic science, criminalistics, traces, crime scene and criminal investigations. The forensic advisor's role is that of a collaborative, non‐competitive effort intended to provide scientific consultation with the myriad actors in the investigative process to advance justice and aid in crime prevention efforts. The generalist forensic scientist, in the role of forensic advisor, helps bridge gaps and break down silos by facilitating communication between actors and overseeing the potential contribution of traces in investigatory efforts. The purposes of this paper are to address the current status of forensic advisors within existing organisational frameworks; to propose roles and responsibilities of the forensic advisor; to delineate the key attributes of the forensic advisor; and to present challenges to implementing this advisor role within a jurisdiction. In developing the roles and responsibilities of the forensic advisor, we examine front‐end, midpoint and back‐end stages of an investigation. Despite organizational challenges explored in this article, the introduction of forensic advisors can serve to diversify the contribution of forensic science and improve the efficiency of the delivery of forensic science services. This article is categorized under: Crime Scene Investigation > Crime Scene Examination Crime Scene Investigation > From Traces to Intelligence and Evidence Jurisprudence and Regulatory Oversight > Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Psychology has, for the most part, been deemed as irrelevant to the work of forensic science, resulting in the neglect of the crucial and central role of the human examiner. Conceptualized as objective and as an exact science, infallible with zero error rates (e.g., Ashbaugh, 1994;Cole, 2005;Evett, 1996; Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 1985), forensic science has failed to properly acknowledge that in many forensic disciplines the human examiner is the instrument of analysis (see Figure 12.1). In such disciplines (e.g., fingerprints, shoe and tire marks, blood stains, ear prints, handwriting, firearms, hair, bite marks), it is up to the human examiner to make judgments and interpretations of visual patterns. The determinations in such disciplines often lack measurements (Dror, 2009a) and are based on a subjective assessment by the human examiner (e.g., "sufficient similarity" between two patterns, usually one collected from the crime scene and the other from a suspect). They pertain even to examinations where part of the analysis is done by instruments, as is

No abstract