Over the years a succession of successful cold case reviews have seen police and forensic scientists working at close quarters with each other to a different level than usually seen in 'live' cases. The experiences of the police in conducting these reviews at the laboratory level with scientists has put the spotlight onto the roles of the senior scientist, the laboratory practitioners and the investigators themselves. The success of these cold cases appears to have been some kind of pyrrhic victory for the senior scientists, successfully solving cold cases at the cost of showing the police how to do it.
A question often posed by those seeking to understand issues that have arisen in past cases so as to improve current and future practices is whether the setting of forensic strategy and the prioritization of exhibit examinations requires a skill that only senior forensic scientists possess? What by way of scientific knowledge makes a scientist more effective at this process than anyone else (such as an investigator for instance) and what precise scientific method are we using to determine which exhibits we should examine, for what and in what order? If the answer is that we read the case circumstances provided by the police, roll the dice and take our chances that is arguably no more scientific than the police sending in items and asking the lab to 'forensicate' the case.
The police, it would appear, have made up their own mind. In most forces the role of deciding forensic strategy and exhibit prioritization rests with scientific support functions internally. That is not to say that the police do not seek scientific advice from the forensic scientists regarding strategy etc, of course they do and in my experience, they more often than not seek out advice so as to make an informed choice. But it is a fair reflection of the status quo in the UK to say that it is the police who ultimately decide on the strategy and priority of exhibit examinations, and they do so whilst working under budgetary constraints.
The police, it would appear, have made up their own mind. In most forces the role of deciding forensic strategy and exhibit prioritization rests with scientific support functions internally. That is not to say that the police do not seek scientific advice from the forensic scientists regarding strategy etc, of course they do and in my experience, they more often than not seek out advice so as to make an informed choice. But it is a fair reflection of the status quo in the UK to say that it is the police who ultimately decide on the strategy and priority of exhibit examinations, and they do so whilst working under budgetary constraints.
Other forces have taken it to another level entirely, performing the strategy setting and prioritization functions of the senior scientists themselves - whether by employing scientists or utilizing other in-house functions, but also employing laboratory level practitioners to process exhibits - only really drawing the line at performing the analysis of samples (such as DNA etc) themselves. The economic argument for them doing so in-house, rather than utilizing the established external forensic provider market has not been published. Given the costs of not only employing scientific staff but also investing in facilities and the costs of gaining accreditation, it is doubtful that the economic argument will turnout to be persuasive for in-force provision compared to seeking a competitive rate in the external market - at least in the short term, but that would be largely missing the point. The point is that some of the police forces have seen how complex casework is done and they believe that they can do at least as good a job themselves in-house and that appears to be enough for them to consider that in-force provision is the way forward.
Whatever happens in the future, the market paints a bleak picture for the future role of the senior scientist.
