<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"><channel rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com//inpress?rss=yes"><title>Science &amp; Justice - Articles in Press</title><description>Science &amp; Justice RSS feed: Articles in Press. Science &amp; Justice provides a forum to promote communication and publication of original articles, reviews and correspondence on subjects 
that spark debates within the Forensic Science Community and the criminal justice sector. The journal provides a medium whereby all aspects 
of applying science to legal proceedings can be debated and progressed. Science &amp; Justice is published four times a year, and will 
be of interest primarily to practising forensic scientists and their colleagues in related fields. It is chiefly concerned with the publication 
of formal scientific papers, in keeping with its international learned status, but will not accept any article describing experimentation 
on animals which does not meet strict ethical standards. 
 
 
 

 
 Promote communication and informed debate 
within the Forensic Science Community and the criminal justice sector. 
  To promote the publication of learned and original research 
findings from all areas of the forensic sciences and by so doing to advance the profession. 
 To promote the publication of case 
based material by way of case reviews. 
 To promote the publication of book reviews and conference proceedings which are of interest 
to the forensic science community. 
 
 
 
 Scope: 
 
 
 
 To provide a medium whereby all aspects of applying science 
to legal proceedings can be debated and progressed. 
 To appeal to all those with an interest in the forensic sciences. 
 


 
 Science &amp; Justice  has an Impact Factor of 0.838 on the 2010 Journal Citation Reports®, published by Thomson Reuters.</description><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com//inpress?rss=yes</link><dc:publisher>Elsevier Inc.</dc:publisher><dc:language>en</dc:language><dc:rights> © 2010 Forensic Science Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. </dc:rights><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:issn>1355-0306</prism:issn><prism:publicationDate>2010-08-18</prism:publicationDate><prism:copyright> © 2010 Forensic Science Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. </prism:copyright><prism:rightsAgent>healthpermissions@elsevier.com</prism:rightsAgent><items><rdf:Seq><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000985/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000997/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610001000/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000742/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000754/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000699/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000730/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000584/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000626/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000687/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000705/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000572/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000560/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000559/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000596/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000328/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000523/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000511/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000304/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030609002524/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS135503060900255X/abstract?rss=yes"/><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030607000445/abstract?rss=yes"/></rdf:Seq></items></channel><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000985/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Transfer of glass fragments when bottles and drinking glasses are broken - Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000985/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: Experiments have been carried out to determine if and how many glass fragments are transferred onto upper garments following breakage of bottles and drinking glasses. In all instances glass was transferred. The numbers of transferred fragments after a bottle is broken ranges from three to twenty five. The numbers of fragments transferred following the breakage of a drinking glass ranges from three to approximately one hundred and twenty. On average three times the amount of glass is transferred following breakage of a drinking glass as compared to breakage of a bottle.</description><dc:title>Transfer of glass fragments when bottles and drinking glasses are broken - Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>Margaret Irwin</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2010.07.001</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-08-18</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-08-18</prism:publicationDate></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000997/abstract?rss=yes"><title>The evidentiary values of “cold hits” in a DNA database search on two-person mixture - Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000997/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: We provide a unified overview on the evaluation of the evidentiary values of cold-hit DNA matches between profiles in a DNA database and a mixed crime sample. Also discussed are methods of handling missing data in evaluating the DNA evidence. Through the analysis of a constructed murder case using Swedish data, we illustrate the applicability of the methods on various situations including the presence of multiple matches and consideration of allele drop-out. We also demonstrate the calculation of the probability of erroneous attribution as a measure of the effectiveness of the database search on DNA mixtures.</description><dc:title>The evidentiary values of “cold hits” in a DNA database search on two-person mixture - Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>Yuk-Ka Chung, Wing K. Fung</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2010.07.002</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-08-18</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-08-18</prism:publicationDate></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610001000/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Validity of a dichotomous expert response in bitemark analysis using 3-D technology - Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610001000/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: Despite efforts to quantify bitemark evidence, comparison procedures remain subjective and yield different degrees of certainty. Our aim was to study the effectiveness of a comparison procedure requiring a dichotomous response by the expert. We compared overlays from 3-D images of dental casts and bite impressions, obtained using DentalPrint© software. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed on the results of 104 comparisons, finding an area under the ROC curve of 0.955 (standard error=0.029; 95% CI, 0.896–0.986), sensitivity of 92.3% (95% CI, 74.8–98.8) and specificity of 98.7% (95% CI, 93.0–99.8). According to these findings, this bitemark analysis procedure is highly accurate, although study limitations are discussed, placing these results in context. The main advantage of the dichotomous decision model is that it can be more easily understood, facilitating course of justice. Further research is warranted to explore the potential of this approach as an alternative to diagnostic decisions based on certainty levels.</description><dc:title>Validity of a dichotomous expert response in bitemark analysis using 3-D technology - Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>Stella Martin-de-las-Heras, Daniel Tafur</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2010.07.003</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-08-16</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-08-16</prism:publicationDate></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000742/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000742/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>David Canter and Donna Youngs have contributed to and edited a subject, which is becoming increasingly important, in criminal investigation and has contributed to the many successes in recent years, one reason why the technique as applied to the Management of Serious and Serial Major Criminal Investigations has gained significance and is now widely used in many of these major criminal investigations.</description><dc:title>Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>John Horswell</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2010.06.007</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-08-02</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-08-02</prism:publicationDate><prism:section>BOOK REVIEW</prism:section></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000754/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Digital imaging and image analysis applied to numerical applications in forensic hair examination - Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000754/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: A method that provides objective data to complement the hair analysts' microscopic observations, which is non-destructive, would be of obvious benefit in the forensic examination of hairs. This paper reports on the use of objective colour measurement and image analysis techniques of auto-montaged images. Brown Caucasian telogen scalp hairs were chosen as a stern test of the utility of these approaches. The results show the value of using auto-montaged images and the potential for the use of objective numerical measures of colour and pigmentation to complement microscopic observations.</description><dc:title>Digital imaging and image analysis applied to numerical applications in forensic hair examination - Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>Elizabeth Brooks, Bruce Comber, Ian McNaught, James Robertson</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2010.06.008</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-08-02</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-08-02</prism:publicationDate></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000699/abstract?rss=yes"><title>“Flashburning” — Interpreting the presence of heat damage to a suspect's clothing and footwear in the investigation of fires - Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000699/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: When volatile flammable vapours are released, they can mix with surrounding air and form a vapour cloud. Ignition of this fuel/air mixture will produce a flame front that will flash through the vapour. Items exposed to the flame front, including a suspect's clothing and footwear, may sustain superficial heat damage. At The Forensic Science Service Ltd this is referred to as flashburning. This paper describes the concept of flashburning, the laboratory methodology used to identify it and how an assessment on the overall distribution of that damage may allow a scientist to evaluate its evidential significance. Two anonymised casework examples are used to demonstrate how this information has been interpreted and used in evidence in United Kingdom courts of law.</description><dc:title>“Flashburning” — Interpreting the presence of heat damage to a suspect's clothing and footwear in the investigation of fires - Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>Eric H. Leung, David X. Halliday</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2010.06.002</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-07-20</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-07-20</prism:publicationDate></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000730/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Chemical enhancement of footwear impressions in blood deposited on fabric — Evaluating the use of alginate casting materials followed by chemical enhancement - Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000730/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: Most footwear marks made in blood on a surface such as fabric tend to be enhanced in situ rather than physically recovered using a lifting technique prior to enhancement. This work reports on the use of an alginate material to recover the impressed footwear marks made in blood and deposited on a range of fabric types and colours. The lifted marks were then enhanced using acid black 1 and leuco crystal violet with excellent results.This presents a new method for the lifting and recovery of blood impressions in situ from crime scene followed by subsequent mark enhancement of the lifted impression.</description><dc:title>Chemical enhancement of footwear impressions in blood deposited on fabric — Evaluating the use of alginate casting materials followed by chemical enhancement - Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>Kevin J. Farrugia, Niamh NicDaéid, Kathleen A. Savage, Helen Bandey</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2010.06.006</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-07-15</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-07-15</prism:publicationDate></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000584/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000584/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>This edition of Bloodstain Pattern Analysis with an Introduction to Crime Scene Reconstruction covers the analysis of bloodstain patterns found at violent crime scenes incorporating updated techniques and procedures.</description><dc:title>Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>Deborah George</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2010.05.004</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-07-12</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-07-12</prism:publicationDate><prism:section>BOOK REVIEW</prism:section></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000626/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000626/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Consisting of ten chapters, based in eight forensic anthropology facilities throughout the United States of America, Forensic Anthropology Laboratory aims to provide the reader, regardless of their educational motivation, with a comparison of, and personal insight into, the scientific, administrative, and legal roles played by forensic anthropologists.</description><dc:title>Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>B. Macdonald-McMillan, S. Paterson</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2010.05.008</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-07-12</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-07-12</prism:publicationDate><prism:section>BOOK REVIEW</prism:section></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000687/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Evaluation of the shedding potential of textile materials - Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000687/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: A practical method is proposed to assess the shedding potential of textile materials. The evaluation of the sheddability is based on the use of adhesive tapes and on comparison, using three different sheddability scales for cotton, wool and fine man-made fibres.</description><dc:title>Evaluation of the shedding potential of textile materials - Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>K. De Wael, L. Lepot, K. Lunstroot, F. Gason</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2010.06.001</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-07-08</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-07-08</prism:publicationDate></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000705/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Ten methods for calculating the uncertainty of measurement - Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000705/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: While forensic laboratories are coming under increasing pressure to provide meaningful estimates of measurement uncertainty, there has been little discussion of this topic in the literature. This article summarizes ten bases for estimating this parameter: (1) proficiency tests; (2) readability limits; (3) independent reference materials; (4) operational limits applied during calibration; (5) expert judgment; (6) precision control samples without (6) and with (7) contributions from extramural sources of error; (8) error budgets; (9) historical performance; and (10) ruggedness tests. Based on the assumptions underlying each approach, the forensic community will need to apply a variety of discipline-specific approaches to arrive at satisfactory estimates of measurement uncertainty.</description><dc:title>Ten methods for calculating the uncertainty of measurement - Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>Jack Wallace</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2010.06.003</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-07-05</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-07-05</prism:publicationDate></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000572/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000572/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>The thirst for forensic science shows no sign of abating, with yet another title to add to the already crowded book shelves. Skeletons in the closet: stories from the county morgue is based on the real life cases of Dr. Stephen D Cohle, Medical Examiner for West Michigan. This book is over four hundred pages long and divided into eight chapters. The first chapter identity crisis deals with well identification of unknown victims and how their identity was established. Chapter 2 Series outlines a number of cases involving serial killers. In the I fought the law and the law won deaths caused by the guns are outlined but with little in the way of forensic detail. Malice Domestic deals with domestic disputes and spurred lovers. By reasons of insanity is one of the more interesting of chapters, outlining Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome and the like. Burying the evidence and Accidents follow the same format with bizarre and difficult cases. The final chapter Things ain't always what they seem could easily have been incorporated into the previous chapters, therefore avoiding any repetition. The cases are in themselves interesting but the writing style of the authors really starts to annoy as you progress through the book. There is constant repetition of words and phrases which do not add anything to the story.</description><dc:title>Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>Bernadette Manifold</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2010.05.003</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-07-01</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-07-01</prism:publicationDate><prism:section>BOOK REVIEW</prism:section></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000560/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000560/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>The aim of this book is to provide an up-to-date overview of the legalities of life sentences — which it does very well.   The book starts with an Introduction chapter, with the first 2 pages looking at how the public perceives life sentences. It then gives a short history of life sentence reviews, by looking at how committees have changed and various vital judgements which have been made from 1988 onwards. It also looks briefly at Judicial Review and the European Convention on Human Rights.</description><dc:title>Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>Claire Rickard</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2010.05.002</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-06-30</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-06-30</prism:publicationDate><prism:section>BOOK REVIEW</prism:section></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000559/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000559/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>This text book of 187 pages is a ‘one-stop shop’ of experientially gained knowledge and information addressing the needs of pathologists dealing with the heart which has been subjected to previous surgeries. Houser is a cardiac surgeon by training and has written this textbook to facilitate an understanding of the latest knowledge in determining a cause of death and what role (if any) the heart had to play in the death of the individual. The heart may be subjected to numerous invasive procedures during a patient's lifetime across a number of decades. One of the many questions to consider is which procedure and what timeline of surgery and intervention come into play where numerous operations are involved.</description><dc:title>Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>J. Cassella</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2010.05.001</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-06-09</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-06-09</prism:publicationDate><prism:section>BOOK REVIEW</prism:section></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000596/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000596/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>The issues surrounding child abuse and suspicious child deaths are very complicated matters for clinicians, pathologists, law enforcement officials and legal professionals to investigate. It is a traumatic environment for all officers and agents associated with any such investigations. The evidence base for forensic pathology, particularly in the area of paediatric forensics, is growing steadily and as a consequence of these developments these two internationally acclaimed authors/editors have brought together in this new text book an excellent team who have produced and provided an up-to-date, comprehensive, and thorough review of the contemporary problems and issues encountered in practice today.</description><dc:title>Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>J.P. Cassella</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2010.05.005</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-06-09</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-06-09</prism:publicationDate><prism:section>BOOK REVIEW</prism:section></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000328/abstract?rss=yes"><title>A preliminary investigation into the comparison of dissolution/digestion techniques for the chemical characterization of polyurethane foam - Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000328/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: Due to their widespread use in domestic and commercial premises, polyurethane foams, as either fragmented or bulk foam, are types of evidence commonly found at crime scenes. The traditional approach to determining the evidential value of polyurethane foam (PF) involves comparing recovered and control fragments under low and high magnification, under various lighting conditions, as well as the comparison of their respective dye spectra. As with most forms of trace evidence, chemical comparison is also desirable. In this work, two approaches to chemically comparing foam fragments were investigated, i.e. inductively coupled plasma–optical emission spectrometry (ICP–OES) analysis of the Tin (Sn) content in different foam types; and gas chromatography–flame ionization detection (GC–FID) analysis of soluble components in PFs mobilized by dichloromethane. Seven different foam types were studied and their Sn content was found to be different. They also produced characteristic GC–FID chromatographic profiles whose compounds were identified with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) analysis. This study suggests that incorporating chemical data obtained from GC–FID/GC–MS and ICP–OES into a case involving PF could be advantageous, as this will enable the forensic scientist to broaden the comparison between control and recovered fragments, and further assess the strength of the evidence. However, ICP–OES analysis is a destructive technique with a relatively short sample turnaround time, whilst GC–FID analysis is more time-consuming and non-destructive, requiring corroboration with GC–MS data. The values of these two analytical techniques in the forensic chemical characterization of PFs are discussed.</description><dc:title>A preliminary investigation into the comparison of dissolution/digestion techniques for the chemical characterization of polyurethane foam - Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>N.S. Parsons, M.H.W. Lam, S.E. Hamilton, F.Hui</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2010.03.002</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-05-17</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-05-17</prism:publicationDate></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000523/abstract?rss=yes"><title>The reincorporation and redistribution of trace geoforensic particulates on clothing: An introductory study - Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000523/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: Two experimental studies were undertaken to investigate the processes of reincorporation and redistribution of trace evidence on garments when worn by a suspect or a victim (reincorporation) or after the garments have been seized and packaged for subsequent forensic analysis (redistribution). The first experiment utilised UV powder, an established proxy for geoforensic trace particulates and the second experiment utilised daffodil pollen transferred onto garments under conditions that mimicked forensic reality. It was demonstrated that reincorporation of trace particulates occurs from upper to lower parts of the same garment and also from upper garments to lower garments. Reincorporation also occurred to all areas of the lower garments, however the highest concentration of particulates was found to be the lap area of the jeans. Particulates also tended to be preserved around technical details such as stitching or relief design features of the garments. Thus the decay of particulates after a contact has been made does not necessarily involve a loss of those particulates from the entire system. These findings have implications for the interpretation of trace evidence when seeking to establish the source of initial contacts or the chronology of pertinent events. The second study demonstrated that folding and packaging items of clothing leads to a redistribution of any trace particulate evidence that is present thereby eliciting an alteration in the spatial distribution of that evidence. There is therefore a necessity to take the context of trace evidence into account and also to follow protocols that are sensitive to these aspects of trace evidence behaviour as a failure to do so may have consequences for the correct interpretation of such evidence.</description><dc:title>The reincorporation and redistribution of trace geoforensic particulates on clothing: An introductory study - Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>R.M. Morgan, J.C. French, L. O'Donnell, P.A. Bull</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2010.04.002</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-05-11</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-05-11</prism:publicationDate></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000511/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000511/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Thirteen years after the first edition, Saferstein's Forensic Science Handbook Volume III comes this second edition. The second edition compromises nine chapters which cover a diverse range of topics from analysis of dust (Chapter 2), applications of IR spectroscopy (Chapter 3) and microscopy (Chapter 4) thru DNA (Chapter 7) and Y-STRs (Chapter 8), and firearm discharge residue (Chapter 9). The quality of the images within this edition is far superior to that of the first edition in terms of size and clarity. This is especially evident in Chapter 7. I will review this book in two ways: as an overall review and; as a comparison to the first edition.</description><dc:title>Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>Shanan S. Tobe</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2010.04.001</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-05-10</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-05-10</prism:publicationDate><prism:section>BOOK REVIEW</prism:section></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000304/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Calculating likelihood ratios for a mixed DNA profile when a contribution from a genetic relative of a suspect is proposed - Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030610000304/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Abstract: This technical note describes a practical method for evaluating evidence in the case of a two person conditioned DNA mixture where the defence proposition is that the unknown contributor is genetically related to the suspect. A conditioned mixture is one where the presence of DNA from one of two individuals is accepted by both prosecution and defence. A typical example would be a vaginal swab in an alleged rape case, where the presence of the complainant's DNA would be expected and samples have been taken from the complainant and a suspect. Much has been written about the interpretation of such mixtures and the calculation of the conditional genotype probabilities that must be carried out. In general, such treatments assume that the unknown contributor, under the defence proposition, is unrelated to the known individuals. In this paper, we consider the case where the defence proposition is that the unknown contributor is genetically related to the suspect. We describe a method, incorporating a flow chart and reference tables that facilitate manual calculations of the likelihood ratio for several postulated genetic relationships.</description><dc:title>Calculating likelihood ratios for a mixed DNA profile when a contribution from a genetic relative of a suspect is proposed - Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>Roberto Puch-Solis, Sue Pope, Ian Evett</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2010.02.001</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-03-22</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-03-22</prism:publicationDate><prism:section>TECHNICAL NOTE</prism:section></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030609002524/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030609002524/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>Consisting of ten chapters, based in eight forensic anthropology facilities throughout the United States of America, Forensic Anthropology Laboratory aims to provide the reader, regardless of their educational motivation, with a comparison of, and personal insight into, the scientific, administrative, and legal roles played by forensic anthropologists.</description><dc:title>Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>B. Macdonald-McMillan, S. Paterson</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2009.11.080</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-02-01</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-02-01</prism:publicationDate><prism:section>BOOK REVIEW</prism:section></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS135503060900255X/abstract?rss=yes"><title>Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS135503060900255X/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>This book, from the description on the back cover is intended to provide comprehensive coverage of “the study of forensic science, and its approaches to the investigation of death, disaster and abuse”. Any reader expecting this however is likely to be disappointed. The book mainly deals with forensic anthropology, very much in an Asia-Pacific region context, and there is no significant coverage of other aspects of forensic death investigation (crime scene, trace evidence, forensic medicine, forensic odontology, toxicology etc.). I feel that the title of the book is a misnomer and taken in combination with the description on the back cover is potentially misleading. To be fair the editor does set out in his introduction that the text does not intend to be a comprehensive treatment.</description><dc:title>Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>Simon W. Lewis</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2009.11.083</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2010)</dc:source><dc:date>2010-01-11</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2010-01-11</prism:publicationDate><prism:section>BOOK REVIEW</prism:section></item><item rdf:about="http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030607000445/abstract?rss=yes"><title>WITHDRAWN: Sediment fingerprints: A forensic technique using quartz sand grains: A response - Corrected Proof</title><link>http://www.scienceandjusticejournal.com/article/PIIS1355030607000445/abstract?rss=yes</link><description>The Publisher regrets that this article is an accidental duplication of an article that has already been published in Science &amp; Justice, Volume 47 (2007), doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2007.08.001. The duplicate article has therefore been withdrawn.</description><dc:title>WITHDRAWN: Sediment fingerprints: A forensic technique using quartz sand grains: A response - Corrected Proof</dc:title><dc:creator>Peter A. Bull, Ruth M. Morgan</dc:creator><dc:identifier>10.1016/j.scijus.2007.07.001</dc:identifier><dc:source>Science &amp; Justice (2007)</dc:source><dc:date>2007-08-20</dc:date><prism:publicationName>Science &amp; Justice</prism:publicationName><prism:publicationDate>2007-08-20</prism:publicationDate></item></rdf:RDF>