Customer Reviews

Every Contact Leaves a Trace : Scientific Detection in the Twentieth Century

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Starting from the fundamental principle of forensics, that "every contact leaves a trace", this book presents a fascinating study of the techniques that we have all heard about in countless trials and on television dramas and crime reconstruction, but which until now have remained mysteries to the outsider. Chapters on poisons including alcohol and drugs, documents and handwriting, sudden death, fire, blood and other body fluids, identity, trace and contact evidence, ballistics, time of death, criminal psychology and the handling of forensic evidence present a complete picture of a science which involves much more than post-mortems.

Recent and earlier famous cases are covered in detail, including those in which Dr. Erzinqlioglu was himself an expert witness. If you've ever wondered how the pattern of blood splatters can yield so many clues, or why it is so difficult to establish exact time of death, you will find the answers here.

The author is a leading forensic scientist who carried out more than 500 murder investigations around the world.

Over the years, I have read many books on forensic science. Some are popularizations aimed at the general public, some are textbook-like and aimed at professionals in the field while many others are aimed at various levels somewhere in between those two extremes. I would classify this book in the third category - just short of being a textbook (although I can see this book being recommended as supplementary reading in forensic science courses). The author discusses the basic principles of forensic science. He covers different techniques used in much of the field and offers his professional opinion on many cases that everyone is familiar with. The book has been written with a careful choice of words which is indicative of a careful scientist. Reading this book was both a great pleasure for me as well as a learning experience. It's a real page-turner that is difficult to put down and I strongly recommend it.

Dr. Erzinclioglu is very talented as an informative writer. The topics covered in this book are pretty basic - it is a great intro to forensic science book. He covers things such as time of death, cause of death, the method of poisoning, fire investigation - in the context of explaining the methods used to investigate each one. He cites many investigations as examples, and most of them are the more obscure that we have not heard about already, (at least if you leave in the US and not Britain), unlike a lot of other basic forensic texts that use cases we all may know about.

One of the more interesting cases discussed in this book under the chapter "Words and Images" is the Shroud of Turin. I recently watched a show on DSC not too long ago on this same topic, but the author brings up quite a bit of evidence that was never even touched on in the show.

This is one of those texts that just makes you feel smarter and more informed after reading it, and those who are seriously considering a career in this field will probably feel drawn to the author in the sense that this is a person you would like to meet and train under. I look forward to reading their other works.

In short, I highly recommend this book to anyone who would like to begin researching forensic science without throwing themselves into it headfirst. This will give you the basic principles and ideas that you need, as well as a basic understanding of different techniques used by investigators. It is a good foundation to build from in your learning process.

Interesting material on (e.g.) -- abrasions, Bertillon, bite marks, cadaveric spasms, Chechen hostages, chloroform, Arthur Conan Doyle, drowning, Dunblane, ethnic groups, fingerprints, genetics, ground-penetrating radar, haemoglobin, Hitler diaries, identikit, J F Kennedy, Libyan Embassy, maggots, Georgi Markov, mass graves, narcotics, 9/11 [five pages], nitrogen, Occam, polygraphs, quicklime, radiocarbon dating, Rasputin, ricin, Rwanda, security in bomb blast areas, sexual differences, Shipman, steganograhpy (hiding messages in long computer files), taphonomy, teeth, vitreous humor, Waco (edited down from a long list).

What interested me also was the philosophical aspects here. We all know philosophers never say anything useful on knowledge - they are paid to be evasive. But in forensic investigation, theories and observations and witness statements all contribute to the final result. There are two pages on 'expecting the unexpected', trying not to be biased by preconceptions. Interesting comparison of crossword clues with real life - all the bits have to fall into place, and it may be as unexpected and yet as satisfactory as the solution to a 'cryptic' crossword. This of course is somewhat idealised - in practice there are investigations as with Dr Kelly, or JFK, or Diana Spencer where truth takes second (or third..) place.

I agree with the first review and believe it essential reading for anyone trying to "get away with it". It is a plausible fusion of probable motives and credible methods, even if it does dwell at length on events during the middle ages more than on current, well covered cases (NO, despite the promise on the book jacket, he never did explain "why the gloves didn't fit O.J.Simpson").
The only logical and factual errors that I noted (page 168-9)was that careful analysis of the Graf Hindenberg fire's origin was NOT were seeping H2 was likely/designed to migrate. Also H2 gas is 15x lighter than air, so there is a distinct difference in the mixing ratio/speed if it is released and can flow UP (top of the dirigible), versus the bottom where the heavier O2 would have kept it contained and poorly mixed. Readily available films indicate the fire racing downward along the zeppellins' sides at improbably fast speeds, whereas the light H2 would have forced the flames UPWARD.

For those interested:..."nasa hindenberg" etc. wherein these items:

"Regardless of much speculation, translation of a letter handwritten in German on June 28, 1937, by Hindenburg investigator and electrical engineer Otto Beyersdorff states "The actual cause of the fire was the extreme easy flammability of the covering material brought about by discharges of an electrostatic nature ..." Recently, NASA investigator Dr. Addison Bain has verified this finding by scientific experiments that duplicated the vigorous ignition by static discharge to the aluminum powder filled covering material. Spectacular colors of this type of combustion were produced from the burning skin of the giant airship. Dr. Bain concluded that the Hindenburg would have burned and crashed even if helium would have been used as the lifting gas. Dr. Bain noted that the particular type of aluminum powder particles, which are flake like in shape, are particularly sensitive to electrical discharge."

I read this book over two brief sittings, having bought it because I was curious about what forensic scientists do. I was disappointed with the book; quite a lot, actually. After finishing it, I returned it to the bookstore from whence I purchased it and GAVE it back, not asking for a refund. After all, my favorite bookstore is not a library, and the quality of the book was not their fault.

Why the negative reaction? Two main reasons: lack of sufficient technical detail (often prefaced with the qualifier 'xxx is too technical for the present discussion, but suffice it to say....')
and a striking example of scientific hypocrisy that the book spends much of its time cautioning against.

First of all, I would appreciate being the judge of what is 'too technical. I am an engineer and I am not afraid of big words or complex subjects. Include it, if YOU understand it, and leave the migraines to me, please.

The other example of which I speak is Dr Erzinclioglu's rant denigrating the entire issue of sociobiology. After holding forth his considered 'scientific' opinions on faith healing and use of psychics in a previous chapter, notably thin for any references to double blind experiments, specific researchers, institutions or organizations involved in hard research in this area), he then neatly dispatches a considerable amount of research in the area of sociobiology by equating it with pure behavioral determinism. This is a gross oversimplification of sociobiology; reductio ad absurdum in its finest form.

Sociobiologists, contrary to what Dr. E says, do not postulate that humans are behavioral automatons. They postulate behavioral propensities, based on sound anthropological and other-species research, coupled with logic which strives to uncover potential survival value associated with group tendencies toward a certain behaviors. Such behavior does not preclude the exercise of free will, it seeks to uncover collective tendencies (i.e., probabilities, Dr, E.; another word frequently mentioned as applicable to 'evidence', not apparently considered applicable to sociology?) It is admittedly a soft science, but all of the tomes I have read on this subject are quite encumbered with such items as footnotes detailing who did the research, the locations of peer reviewed publications of same, and the specific research cited. Even in the lay literature.

His approach to explaining sociobiology is publishing an either uninformed or intentionally simple minded opinion, rather than presenting EVIDENCE refuting its tenets. Even his arguments against it are demonstrably thin, based as they are on a misstatement of its basic tenets. If this is an example of his work, I recommend that some of the folks he help put away get a better lawyer and challenge the forensic evidence! They might be free in no time!

Any points he earned in his earlier chapters were pretty much forfeited by this intellectual faux pas. I appluad his recommendations regarding being open minded in the pursuit of truth, and I fully recommend that Dr. E read his own words and revisit sociobiology, perhaps this time aided by actually reading some of the considerable literature, both popular and professional, available on the subject.

Save your money on this book. I recommend an hour watching the Discovery Channel on cable, instead. It's cheaper, more entertaining, and more informative.