Written on the Skin

by Liz Porter

A crime scene investigator notes the tiny indentations on the fragments of a tin can identified at a bomb site. After months of testing he is able to match them to the can opener that made them - and lead police to the bomb-maker who used it.A forensic dentist documents the marks in chewing gum dropped by a thief during a burglary and matches them to the teeth of the suspect. A forensic physician examines an abused child, "reading" the terrible alphabet that fists and weapons write on the skin and identifying a mother's hairbrush as the source of the "tramline bruising" on her daughter's leg. Liz Porter's riveting casebook shows how forensic investigators - including pathologists, chemists, entomologists, DNA specialists and document examiners - have used their specialist knowledge to identify victims, catch perpetrators, exonerate innocent suspects and solve dozens of crimes and mysteries.Winner of the Ned Kelly Award for Best True Crime 2007

Genres: Nonfiction, True Crime, Crime, Audiobook, Science

12 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2006

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.

Liz Porter is a journalist who began her career in Hong Kong and then worked in Sydney, London and Stuttgart before returning to her home town of Melbourne, where she is a feature writer for the Sunday Age. She has won awards for her writing on legal issues and has published a novel. She lives with her partner, her daughter and the obligatory female-writer quota of two cats and is a hopelessly devoted fan of the St Kilda Football Club.

Reviews

[a*s*h · Rating 3 out of 5]

October 2021 edit: huh. So apparently forensic science, apart from DNA, is largely unproven in terms of scientific reproduction and peer review and is largely based on precedent of admissibility into court rooms. Need to read more into, especially into Australian context but, yeah. Actual review is way at the bottom.

(Mostly I listened to this one podcast episode and then looked up the sources and now I have a lot of research to do. Leaving some sources here to come back to.)

https://citationsneeded.medium.com/ep...

https://innocenceproject.org/overturn...

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/tru...

https://features.propublica.org/blood...

https://features.propublica.org/blood...

https://sites.nationalacademies.org/p...

LATER THAT SAME DAY edit:

okay, so i found a nice study, and here's a citation: Barbara Etter (2013) The contribution of forensic science to miscarriage of justice cases, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 45:4, 368-380, DOI: 10.1080/00450618.2013.767376

so this is a nice paper on the development of forensic science in australia, how forensics is involved in cases where there's a miscarriage of justice, and actually mentions the innocence project linked from before. i'm gonna get out some quotes from this article below.

In the 2005 study, Langdon and Wilson found that ‘experts as advocates’ (or partisan expert testimony) was deemed partly responsible for a MoJ in nearly 22% of cases, whilst ‘inconclusive expert evidence’ (quality of evidence, procedures used, inconclusive results and interpretation thereof, and contamination) was identified in over 31% of the cases studied (Ref. 33, p. 9).

In nearly 44% of all cases researched, the basis for the conviction rested on circumstantial evidence.

Langdon and Wilson stated in their conclusion (Ref. 33, p. 18)

"Another major concern relating to the findings of the present analysis is the use of DNA results, particularly regarding their interpretation and the handling of samples in the laboratories. The science of DNA should not counter the integrity of the testing process, nor be considered a substitute for a thorough police investigation into a particular crime".

the paper also reference the innocent project, which lists one of the most common causes of wrongful convictions being 'Unvalidated or improper forensic science...' among other things.

so the same issues seem to be cropping up in australia.

etter goes on to say 'It is clear that forensic science appears as a significant casual factor in MoJ cases overseas as well as in Australia,' after citing some papers on similar topics done in the uk and canada; it actually emphasis the parts about forensic science being shoddy, for eg this in the uk section:

... ‘the high-profile miscarriages of justice were in the main the result of human factors, such as police officers who fabricated evidence, scientists who made mistakes or suppressed evidence'....'The causes of miscarriage of justice are many and varied and include inefficient or misguided investigations, fabricated or suppressed evidence, misconceived expert evidence and confessions obtained through duress' …

etter brings up a specific case -- Wood v R [2012] NSWCCA 21 -- and says about it: 'This particular case study provides an excellent example of possible ‘junk forensic science’ and the dangers inherent in flawed expert opinions. This case is quite recent and one wonders what lessons have been learned from Splatt, Chamberlain and other cases involving critically flawed forensic science.'

so...forensic science is very differently applied than most science science fields.

etter talks about the innocence projects in australia, gives a link to the one in wa: http://www.innocenceprojectwa.org.au/.

the next section of the paper after miscarriage of justice cases, starts talking about the way forensics is used in corrupt charges or to plant evidence. all very fascinating and relevant and terrible, but i was looking more about like something that talks more about how forensic science itself isn't up to scientific practice. i mean, i guess self evident, since it pointed out there's not standards for evidence admissibility:

...there may be a much greater role here for the Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency (ANZPAA) and the associated National Institute of Forensic Science (NIFS) in relation to identifying international best practice in police investigation (similar to the UK Murder investigation manual [40]), the development of police forensic strategies and the broader practice of forensic science.....Proper accountability for inappropriate actions or misconduct by police, lawyers, DPP’s, forensic scientists and others, also needs to be a high priority so that there is a strong deterrent in future matters and an ability for personal and organisational learning. We need to ensure the highest ethical and professional standards both within policing, the forensic science community and the legal profession and ensure appropriate and ongoing training and education in order to prevent miscarriages of justice. Dr Bob Moles is of the view that there should be MoJ training as part of any law degree. ... Perhaps such training should also form the basis of any forensic science education? In addition, members of the Australian and New Zealand Forensic Science Society (ANZFSS) should be continually reminded of their ethical and professional obligations which arise from their acceptance of the Code of Ethics as a requirement of membership...

but something more about the lack of scientific practice within the field? it does keep bringing up a lot of good points and issues to raise regardless though.

here's another paper that might elucidate some points, also set in australia: David Field, Ian R. Coyle, Graham A. Starmer, Glen Miller & Paul Wilson (2009) Trust me – I'm an expert: forensic evidence and witness immunity, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 41:2, 113-129.

i think this article might be more honing into the lack of accountability with the 'expert' evidence's use in wrongful conviction:

'This particular decision [Commonwealth of Australia v Griffiths and Anor [2007] NSWCA 370.] appears to further damage an already weakened system, by confirming that there is no immediate process whereby either a forensic scientist, or those who employ them, can be held liable in damages to anyone wrongfully convicted of any offence as the result of a specialist report that proves to be inaccurate.'...

talks about how 'miscarriages of justice involving forensic processes can not only be covered up, but may also be exempted from any subsequent jurisprudential process, therapeutic or otherwise'....more yikes, but not exactly what i'm looking for....still relevant.

actually, a chunk of this paper deals with the miscarriage of justice in this specific case, mostly bc it's a good case study of what field et al are trying to prove, specifically, goes into detail about one of the experts in the case botching the process of collecting certain evidence, making its admission and use in conviction of the plaintiff kind of a sham.

then goes more into detail about the legal immunity and lack of channels of accountability for this sort of thing:

...the scientific investigator who has been asked to test a hypothesis (e.g. that the substance is a particular form of illegal drug) by conducting a laboratory process, and who has yet to decide what their evidence will be. It is at this precise moment that our courts – and those who resort to them for a reliable justice process – are entitled to absolute, unfettered, impartiality and rigorous scientific enquiry. If this is not forthcoming, and if any bias, for whatever reason, and from whatever cause, creeps into what the witness knows will ultimately be their evidence to the court, why should it be disinfected by a long-established legal rule designed to protect witnesses from telling what they perceive to be the truth, and to forestall a multiplicity of actions?

oh boy it goes into some legal as technicalities after this, bear with me. so field et al bring up a uk case, that was later referenced in a south australian case, they analyse the judgements of lord hope from Darker and Ors v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police (2001) below:

...the existence of a vital distinction between collecting the evidence, and subsequently preparing one's findings for the court process, whether in the form of a report or a ‘proof’ taken by one's counsel prior to trial. One must then ask whether the carrying out of scientific testing belongs in the ‘collection’ category or the ‘proofing’ category, if one may use these convenient shorthand terms to describe the two distinct processes....

which is pretty big, kinda is what i was trying to read up on -- whether forensic science is up to the same standards up as other scientific fields. so, to be admitted into court, doesn't matter if it is, at a certain point.

okay, so this paragraph glues together all the points made in the paper thus far pretty well:

If the true purpose of the witness immunity rule is to protect witnesses from the consequences of actually giving evidence (or, on the extended definition, preparing to do so), how may it be said to be better preserved by applying it to events and processes which do not, at that time, involve witnesses? Is an expert likely to be deterred from declaring the true outcome of tests by the prospect of giving evidence, if, once they become listed as a witness for trial, they are granted the umbrella of witness immunity? Or are such experts more likely to be encouraged in unprofessional and unscientific practices, particularly if time pressures are placed on them to complete the testing process? And if the immunity is effective in securing the witness's evidence by the application of the rule at that point in time in which they are called upon to testify, why does it need to be extended backwards in time to the moment of testing?

witness immunity seems be a pretty important factor then, one of the many, going by etter's paper too, of factors that contribute to unscientific practices in forensics, and therefore, miscarriage of justice and wrongful convictions. (etter's paper had a whole list of things it quoted off the innocence projects, i just didn't extract it above, since i was more looking at just forensics.)

fields et al also talks about what etter brought up about the lack of standards in forensic science:

In a well-meaning effort to regulate the reliability of expert evidence generally, our justice system already possesses a considerable number of quality assurance mechanisms. With respect, and bearing in mind the number of palpable miscarriages of justice that have occurred despite them, they have proved as effective as a wire fence against a flood.....More recently, we have begun to introduce practice rules38 for the governance of the expert testimony process. However, their purpose would seem to be more intimately connected with the smooth running of the trial process and the avoidance of costs and delay than any attempt to improve the scientific reliability of any evidence given.

damned by the faint praise, alright.

they make a case for imposing a duty of care on expert witnesses such as forensic experts to get it right:

Does public policy not require that expert witnesses be required, under pain of financial penalty, to answer for mistakes they make which have severe consequences in terms of justice outcomes? If the law chooses to limit the liability in negligence of an expert to that in respect of a party who has chosen them to represent their interests, is it at the same time entitled to impose the same limit on their liability to someone who had no say in their appointment, but is the innocent victim of someone whose flawed opinions were imposed upon them by the justice system? Or is the justice system itself to be held accountable?....How rapidly would Government forensic services improve if judges in criminal matters that become miscarriages of justice could impose costs orders on DPP offices?

interestingly, this paper says something similar to what was concluded in the podcast episode i listened to: that judges could have a big say in this problem. aviva shen on that podcast says this:

But I think it’s really on the judges to recognize this. Like that is the judge’s job to assess the evidence and decide whether it is legitimate enough to admit. And I think if the courtroom is a place of performance or if it’s a theater, like the judge is supposed to be, sorry to use kind of a corny analogy that we’ve been using, but if the courtroom is a theater, the judge is supposed to be the director and the judge has power to reject that and maybe that sets a precedent. Maybe it doesn’t. But I think it’s really on the judges to actually take that step because the defense attorney can raise it but they might not get anywhere.

fields et al also point out the judges' power in these scenarios:

The Court [in Griffiths] was afforded a golden opportunity to strike a blow for forensic quality assurance State-wide and – given the relative paucity of legal authority on the point – Australia-wide, by ruling that witness immunity is based, not so much on finality of litigation, as on the importance of encouraging fearless truth from witnesses. It chose instead to opt for the former, and to hold that witness immunity extends even to the personal liability of an employer whose poor supervisory systems enable a witness to give inaccurate evidence at trial.

.

the fields et al paper doesn't end on high note, it sums up the problems outlined in the article pretty clearly here:

Experts in NSW, and other states, in civil litigation must state that they have read and agree to be bound by the various Codes of Conduct for Expert Witnesses. In NSW this is explicated in detail.56 Essentially, this decision makes a mockery of this requirement. What possible purpose can there be in requiring expert witnesses to agree to be bound by an essentially unenforceable Code of Conduct, as least as far as financial imperatives apply, when they can hide their egregious errors behind the shield of witness immunity for acts of errors of commission or omission committed in the formulation of their ideas?

.

i liked this paper, even if it didn't answer my questions exactly, i think it gave me a wider scope of getting what's going on with forensics sciences in courts.

so that's just a few sources i went through. put this actual book i'm supposed to be reviewing in context. there's probably a lot more to the story i've been blinded too anyway, just haven't read as far into it as i should. i'm sure it gets worse.

leaving some citations here for future reading. found most of these on taylor and francis, a peer reviewed journal database, though some articles might be behind a paywall. all are in an australian context.

- Rachel Dioso-Villa, Roberta Julian, Mark Kebbell, Lynne Weathered & Nina Westera (2016) Investigation to Exoneration: A Systemic Review of Wrongful Conviction in Australia, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 28:2, 157-172
- James Robertson (2013) Understanding how forensic science may contribute to miscarriages of justice, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 45:2, 109-112
- James Robertson (2012) Forensic science, an enabler or dis-enabler for criminal investigation?, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44:1, 83-91
- Roberta D. Julian, Sally F. Kelty, Claude Roux, Peter Woodman, James Robertson, Anna Davey, Robert Hayes, Pierre Margot, Alastair Ross, Hugh Sibly & Rob White (2011) What is the value of forensic science? An overview of the effectiveness of forensic science in the Australian criminal justice system project, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 43:4, 217-229
- Frank Crispino, Olivier Ribaux, Max Houck & Pierre Margot (2011) Forensic science – A true science?, Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 43:2-3, 157-176
*THIS IS MOST LIKELY WHAT I WAS ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR LMAO*


ACTUAL REVIEW


Very interesting and informative. Started reading this because I wanted to learn about forensic science and its role in solving crimes and whatnot. This is definitely a great intro into that. Easy to understand and accessible, the chapters are also separated by the specific forensic evidence crucial to the cases in that chapter, from blood to skin to bones to brain to organs to skin to teeth to fire to documents to insects...

I really liked how the cases chosen for each chapter really relate to the forensic topic. They make really good case study examples. All demonstrate quite clearly how experts can determine important facts from “reading” the crime scene. I also like the care taken to represent all these different and specific forensic experts, from forensic pathologists (who figure out a person’s cause of death) or lesser known forensic sciences, like forensic entomology (who use development stages of the bugs found on the dead to date a time of death). It was all very educational and easy to digest.

I liked the detail and the comprehensive representation of the investigations too, specifically how the use of the evidence in court is shown. It doesn’t drag on, but it gives us a good look of all the collaborative expert work done without compromising the focus on the forensic science used. It was also useful to see the kind of techniques and technology that these experts use.

The informative content of the book was fine, but I did raise an eyebrow at some strange phrasings here and there in the book. It was originally published in 2007, so maybe that was long ago enough for it to be excusable but...they really described one of the Asian homicide victims as “oriental/Asian”. The case concerning the trans woman also misgenders her at first which made my stomach churn.

Anyway. Useful book, and made me wonder how forensic experts keep their cool being cross examined by those defence lawyers. Throw the double gloves!

[Kate · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’ve never been particularly interested in crime novels, mysteries, or courtroom dramas, and until I listened to the Serial podcast, true crime was also on the ‘not particularly interested’ list. But there was something about the meticulously produced Serial that sucked me in (and it wasn’t just Sarah Koenig’s dulcet tones). Since that time, I’ve listened to other true crime podcasts and read a few books.

Liz Porter’s book, Written on the Skin – An Australian Forensic Casebook grabbed my attention because of the chapters on the use of DNA testing in forensic science – genes are always interesting!

The book explores advances made in forensic science with reference to particular cases – this is where the massive improvements in DNA testing in the 80s and 90s changed the game. ‘Reading’ teeth, bones, and skin are also covered. Porter uses cases where forensic evidence sealed the guilty or not-guilty verdict (there are many cases where people have been wrongly jailed, only for DNA testing years later to reveal a not-guilty status).

Although the book includes many high-profile cases, such as Lindy Chamberlain, Jaidyn Leskie and the ‘body in the freezer’, there are lots that are unusual or lesser known. Porter researched her book by asking forensic scientists about their most ‘memorable’ cases – that would have made for good dinner party conversation…

I’m not going to give a detailed review of this book (you’ll either be keen to read 400+ pages about forensic science, or not) but I will say that it is well-written; makes for riveting reading; and isn’t loaded with unnecessarily gratuitous or grisly detail. Porter gives clear summaries of the science behind particular aspects of forensic investigation and the roles of the various people involved – for example, I never knew that a forensic entomologist was a specific job.

While I was reading Written on the Skin, a real-time bit of DNA forensics hit the news – the arrest of the person suspected to be the notorious Golden State killer – a snotty tissue chucked in a bin was his undoing.

4/5 Fascinating.

[Karen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is divided into ten sections, Reading The Bones, The Teeth etc. In each section the writer gives a brief history of that specific area of forensic science and then uses real cases to illustrate the developments made.

The writer uses a wide variety of cases, there are famous ones such as Lindy Chamberlain whose conviction was only overturned after DNA and blood spatter analysis of her daughter's jacket, and the use of forensic dentistry to identify victims of the Bali bombing. There are also weird ones such as the one armed man who committed suicide by shooting himself twice with a crossbow.

There are also cases that will make your blood boil, such as the man who is cleared of murdering his girlfriend's 23 month old daughter because so much of the evidence was not allowed to be presented to the jury on the grounds that it might prejudice them against the accused. This wonderful example of a human being - in his version of events left this child in the bath while he went outside to smoke, he heard screaming from the bathroom and when he came back in the child had turned on the hot water tap and was sitting underneath it. Using the shower he ran cold water over the girl for a few minutes then took her out of the bath and proceeded to dry her, at which point her skin started peeling off. The accused and the child's mother decided that instead of seeking medical help for the girl they would treat her with burn cream and paracetamol, the accused was sent to the chemist to buy these things but first he had to go and by marajuana. About seven that evening paramedics were called to the house as the girl had difficulty breathing but there was nothing they could do. Forensic examination of the childs body revealed that the burns could not have happened the way the accused said so but that they were deliberately inflicted, there were also bruises on the childs buttocks which the accused admitted he had inflicted by gently smacking the child with a brush. At trial it was decided that the prosecuter could not ask the experts if the burns could have been caused accidently, as a no answer might prejudice the jury also they would not be told about his detour to buy drugs again they might hold that against him - can't imagine why they would do that. At the end of the trial the jury were directed to find him not guilty, however even if he couldn't have been found guilty of murder based on the evidence that was allowed surely he could have been found guilty of neglect.

Overall this is a really good read, very informative and well presented.

[Elisabeth · Rating 3 out of 5]

A book about forensic science discussing cases from the past several decades including how the science has developed to more refined methods needing less material to do comparisons. It talks about various sources of evidence, including DNA, teethmarks and a lot more. So I found the title a bit misleading tbh. It is just a collection of some bizarre and severe cases of murder/homicides and how the investigations progressed to find out the culprit.

[Ros · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating and informative read. I cannot wait to Reread it.

[Nicki Kendall · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating read all about forensics. Very interesting cases and what evidence tells the investigators. A must read for anyone with an interest in crime scene investigation and/or forensics. #lizporter #writtenontheskin #tea_sipping_bookworm #litsy #goodreads #truecrime #greatreads #bookqueen #amazonkindle #forensics

[Sel Rou · Rating 4 out of 5]

***TRIGGER WARNING should be included in the audiobook.☹️
Not sure if it's in the written copy, but honestly some true cases are very very disturbingly graphic.

A brilliant and detailed description of how forensics is done with real life cases.

[Michael Stacey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating insight into forensics and more so because of local relatable content

[Chrystal · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this book amazing and a tad boring at the same time. Some of the cases were fantastic but others dragged and I found myself wanting to skip to the next section.

[Mei L · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant! Loved the in-depth analysis of both forensic techniques and cases that experts have worked on. A very informative read

[Dee Rose · Rating 3 out of 5]

Real life crime stories and how they were solved using the clues left behind on as well as inside the bodies of the victims.

[Sarah loves books 😻😻😻 · Rating 3 out of 5]

⭐️⭐️⭐️

[Tracey Allen at Carpe Librum · Rating 4 out of 5]

Australian journalist and writer Liz Porter has written a forensic non-fiction book full of Australian crime cases in Written on the Skin - An Australian Forensic Casebook. Some of the cases are well-known (e.g. Bali bombings and the Jaidyn Leskie case) and others readers won't be familiar with.

Porter has broken down the cases into subject headings including: Reading the Blood, Reading the Bones, Reading the Crime Scene, Reading the Teeth and so on, for a total of 10 chapters.

This was an intuitive way to learn more about forensic science and how specialists in each field (entomologists, odontologists, DNA specialists, pathologists, chemists, document examiners and handwriting experts) conduct their work.

Porter selected cases from different time periods in Australia to enable a better understanding of how forensic science has changed and improved over the years.

I didn't realise until now just how vital the state of Victoria was in solving Australian crime. "Victoria is home to two nationally pre-eminent forensic establishments: the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine (VIFM) and the Victoria Police Forensic Services Centre (VPFSC)." Pages xiii and xiv.

"Both the VIFM and VPFSC are leading teaching institutions... and the VIFM is widely considered to be the leading institute of its kind in Australasia and, with its state-of-the-art facilities, among the best in the world." Pages xiii and xiv.

There are some confronting topics and real-life crimes described in Written on the Skin, so the reader will need to have the mental fortitude to get through some of this material. (I broke up the content by reading another book alongside this one).

I highly recommend Written on the Skin to fans of true crime and those with an interest in the sciences. Viewers who enjoy TV shows like CSI will learn how crime scenes are really investigated and processed. Younger readers deciding on a future in forensic science may also find Written on the Skin an informative and educational read.

[Mandy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found Written on the Skin to be professional, extremly well researched, and easy to understand.
I've been interested in true crime and forensic psychology for years which has lead me to the conclusion that the police don't get anywhere near enough credit for the job they do, and forensic scientists get even less. Most true crime books focus on the investigations and the crime itself and although there is DNA results referred to you get very little detail of what forensic scientists do. I loved that Written on the Skin had more focus on the science.
The detailed but reasonably simple explinations of what each specialist does was very interesting. The book also reminds us of how new forensic investigation is and the potental damage "cop shows" are doing to the basic knowledge a jury might have.
I felt Liz Porter was unbias in her narration, I didn't feel she was passing judgement on anyone involved. I'm often frustrated by true crime novels in which the author's tone is clearly judgemental of some aspects of victim's lives, specifically when the victim and/or the offender are gay.
Overall Written on the Skin was very interesting, full of easy to understand information, and respectful of all people mentioned. If you want to know what goes on behind the scenes of an investigation this is the book for you.

[CavyNomes · Rating 4 out of 5]

As far as the contents of the book goes, I liked it. I had only heard of one of the cases previously. Explains the theory of various forensic techniques, and follows up with some Aussie case studies. Recommend for fans of true crime and forensics.

As to the audiobook, it was... odd. I think a book by an Australian, about something Australian (eg. crime), should be read by an Australian. The (American?) accent was very jarring for me, though the speaker (reader?) had clearly worked on her pronunciation for some things. There were many times when I could hear the sound of her mouth moving as she spoke, and I heard what sounded like a page turning more than once. (Weird microphone setup perhaps?)

[Melanie · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you're into forensics, true crime or just have an interest in science this book is worth the read. Broken down into different 'schools' of forensics, each chapter deals with a different focus and technique (eg Reading the Blood, Reading the Documents, Reading the Insects), some overlapping cases to show how different evidence assistance in resolving a case.

If you're squeamish, some of the chapters won't be for you (tip: don't read Reading the Insects while you eat lunch - maggots and rice paper rolls really shouldn't go together!) but if you can get past that it's well worth it.

[Any Length · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an amazing book for anyone who wants to learn more about forensic science based on real case histories. Although the subject matter requires some gruesome facts to be discussed, Liz Porter has done it with the highest respect for the victims. Well written and made understandable for even the most lay person, it does away with some of the "TV CSI" misnomas about what scientists are supposed to be able to do.

[Kulpreet Yadav · Rating 5 out of 5]

Set in modern day Australia, this books documents how technical advancement in the field of forensic science, over the years, has transformed the world of criminal investigation. Real life case, dozens of them, make this book a must-read for those who enjoy reading crime stories.

[Anneb]

A good read

[Michelle Kemp · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very insightful book about how the forensic evidence is collected and “read”.
Also about the origins of forensic science and the discoveries made by scientists in the past.
Very interesting book.

[Lynette · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting, if a bit gruesome. The author reads the book. She’s American. I found every genuwine, do, aloominum, noo, irritating. It’s an Australian story, pay an Australian to read it 😬.

[Suzanne · Rating 4 out of 5]

great book for csi fans. all about forensics.