ABSTRACT:
Although geographically, soil varies from one area to another, from forensic point of view it varies from spot to spot even in the same area because of the specific localized prevailing conditions such as contamination of soil with nature or man made debris, animal remains, organic materials, industrial waste fertilizers etc. therefore the soil at two different spots would be invariably different and distinguishable. Soil forensic characterization is primarily performed in the laboratory, it is emphasized that soil analysis typically begins with the sampling and description of three distinct groups of samples, which are categorized as follows: (i) questioned soil samples whose origin is unknown or disputed – often from a suspect or victim (ii) control soil samples whose origin is known – often from sites such as the crime scene. Soil contains microscopic particles called dust. It can be very characteristic of particular places, such as building sites, coal cellers, workshops or flour mills. Similarly, soil near railway tracks, wells, factories, or soils of the fields have surface conditions. Such a contamination of soil with natural or man-made debris, animal remains, organic materials, industrial wastes and fertilizers, etc contribute towards specific local conditions and helps in characterization of soil.
Cite this article:
Shabina Fatma, Sunita Rani. Forensic Examination of Soil Evidence. Research Journal of Science and Technology. 2024; 16(1):11-8. doi: 10.52711/2349-2988.2024.00003
Cite(Electronic):
Shabina Fatma, Sunita Rani. Forensic Examination of Soil Evidence. Research Journal of Science and Technology. 2024; 16(1):11-8. doi: 10.52711/2349-2988.2024.00003 Available on: https://rjstonline.com/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2024-16-1-3
REFERENCES:
1. Saferstein, R. Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science, 9th ed. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, (2007).
2. Fitzpatrick, R.W. (2013). Soils, in Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, 2nd Edition, J.M. Siegel, G.C. Knupfer and P.J. Saukko, eds, Elsevier, Langford Lane.
3. Murray, R.C. (2011). Evidence from the Earth: Forensic Geology and Criminal Investigation, 2nd Edition, Mountain Press Publishing, Missoula, MT, p. 200.
4. Murray, R.C. andTedrow, J.C.F. (1975). Forensic Geology: Earth Sciences and Criminal Investigation (Republished 1986), Rutgers University Press, New York, p. 240.
5. Murray, R.C. and Tedrow, J.C.F. (1991). Forensic Geology, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p. 240.
6. Donnelly, L.J. (2003). The applications of forensic geology to help the police solve crimes, European Geologist. Journal of the European Federation of Geologists16, 8–12.
7. Marumo, Y. and Yanai, H. (1986). Morphological analysis of opal phytoliths for soil discrimination in forensic science investigation, Journal of Forensic Sciences 31,1039–1049.
8. Thompson, R. and Oldfield, F. (1986). Environmental Magnetism, Allen and Unwin Chapter 2, London.
9. Smale, D. (1973). The examination of paint flakes, glass and soils for forensic purposes, with special reference to the electron probe microanalysis, Journal of Forensic Science Society 13, 5–15.
10. Pirrie, D., Butcher, A.R., Power, M.R., Gottlieb, P. and Miller, G.L. (2004). Rapid quantitative mineral and phase analysis using automated scanning electron microscopy (Qem SCAN); potential applications in forensic geoscience, in Forensic Geoscience: Principles, Techniques and Applications, K. Pyeand D.J. Croft, eds, Geological Society Special Publications 232, London, pp. 103–122.
11. Junger, E.P. (1996). Assessing the unique characteristics of close-proximity soil samples: just how useful is soil evidence, Journal of Forensic Sciences 41, 27–34.
12. Petrisor, I.G., Parkinson, R.A., Horswell, J., Waters, J.M., Burgoyne, L.A., Catcheside, D.E.A., Dejonhe, W., Leys, N., Vanbroekhoven, K., Pattnaik, P. and Graves, D.(2006). Mictrobial forensics, in Environmental Forensics:A Contaminant Specific Guide, R.D. Morrison and B.L. Murphy, eds, NL Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 227–251.
13. Bull, P., Morgan, R.M., Wilson, H.E. and Dunkerely, S. (2004). Multi-technique comparison of source andprimary transfer soil samples: an experimental investigation by D Croft and K Pye. A comment, Science and Justice 44, 173–176.
14. Petrisor, I.G., Parkinson, R.A., Horswell, J., Waters, J.M., Burgoyne, L.A., Catcheside, D.E.A., Dejonhe, W., Leys, N., Vanbroekhoven, K., Pattnaik, P. and Graves, D.(2006). Mictrobial forensics, in Environmental Forensics: A Contaminant Specific Guide, R.D. Morrison and
15. B.L. Murphy, eds, NL Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 227–251.
16. Science and Art (1856). Curious use of the microscope, Scientific American 11, 240.
17. Chisum, W. and Turvey, B. (2000). Evidence dynamics: Locard’s exchange principle and crime reconstruction, Journal of Behavioral Profiling 1, 1–15.
18. Aardahl, K. (2003). Evidential value of glitter particle trace evidence. Master’s Thesis, National University, San Diego.
19. Blackledge, R.D. and Jones, E.L. (2007). All that glitters is gold! in Forensic Analysis on the Cutting Edge: New Methods for Trace Evidence Analysis, R.D. Blackledge, ed, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 1–32.