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

by Zakaria Erzinçlioğlu

Starting from the fundamental principle of forensics that "every contact leaves a trace", Dr Erzinclioglu presents a fascinating study of the techniques that we have all heard about in countless trials and on television dramas and crime reconstructions, but until now had remained mysteries to the outsider. In this gripping analysis of the science of detection, recent and earlier cases will be covered in detail, including those in which Dr Erzinclioglu was himself was an expert witness. If you've ever wondered how the pattern of blood spatters can reveal so many clues, why "the gloves didn't fit" OJ Simpson, whether Rasputin was really poisoned or why it is so difficult to establish the time of death you will find the answers here.

Genres: Science

288 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2000

Reviews

[Gra · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hard going. Interesting in the main though the pedantic tangents that run throughout the book are sometimes boring. He mentions early on that a barrister called him a pedant, I can see why. In fact he’ll probably come on this site to offer some sort of opinion about this review! Shame these tangents detracted from an otherwise interesting and absorbing subject. The last chapter isn’t much to do with forensics but is a true reflection of our society and how selfish and violent it has become.

[Zefyr · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating overview of different forensic methods. It's more than ten years old so I know at least some of what it talks about is out of date, but a lot of the book actually goes back sometimes hundreds of years to look at how forensic technology and theory of the time was used, and how valid that interpretation was. I significantly appreciated that Erzinçlioglu emphasized the role of forensic science as never being absolute proof of guilt: there's a lot in here about common misperceptions of science, and Erzinçlioglu discusses this with humility and compassion for people who have been mistried because of either too much or too little faith in science, or because of how science was represented to the jury (such as suggesting that if the science wasn't 100% certain of guilt, it couldn't be interpreted to suggest anything). I also appreciated his emphasis and explanations about logic as a specific forensic tool, and how that can be twisted to compel a jury too.

This doesn't contain enough information to make anyone a forensic expert of course, as that would require many books on each of dozens of subjects from anatomy to entomology to geology to ballistics and so on: instead, Erzinçlioglu looks at major questions that forensic science attempts to help answer (who did it? where did it happen? when? etc) and touches on a handful of methods for answering those questions through example cases.

[Fred · Rating 5 out of 5]

good stuff. lot's of big words and a tendency to jump from one example to the next so take notes .