2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.09.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A critique of the present use of some geochemical techniques in geoforensic analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

1
23
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
1
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is, of course, recommended that forensic evidence is tested with techniques that analyse independent characteristics of the sample in order to provide significance to the conclusions drawn 5,16,17 . To complement this study into the discriminatory value of the organic components of the soil, analysis of the inorganic fraction of the samples was also undertaken.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is, of course, recommended that forensic evidence is tested with techniques that analyse independent characteristics of the sample in order to provide significance to the conclusions drawn 5,16,17 . To complement this study into the discriminatory value of the organic components of the soil, analysis of the inorganic fraction of the samples was also undertaken.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bull et al [1] incorrectly give the impression that the work reported in [2] and [3] was undertaken to demonstrate that ICP and the other analytical techniques used are able to differentiate between our two experimental sites which they consider are inappropriate because they are located on geologically dissimilar parent materials. The prime purpose of the work reported in these two papers was in fact not to demonstrate the discriminatory capability of the techniques used but to quantify (a) the relative magnitudes of different types of ICP precision and (b) the degree of spatial variability in selected soil properties at the sub-metre scale [3].…”
mentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Bull et al [1] make several general philosophical comments about protocols in geo-forensic analysis and a number of more specific points relating to four of our recent papers [2][3][4][5]. In our opinion they have not properly understood those papers, and the philosophical arguments they present are poorly thought out, unsupported by evidence, and largely divorced from the scientific content of our papers.…”
mentioning
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Laboratory-based techniques often use trace evidence from a discovered burial to link a suspect to the crime scene [1] although there have been reliability issues [12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%