How is Evidence processed in forensics?
Forensic science is fundamentally based on collection, analysis, and its interpretation of the
subjected evidence. This evidence includes biological, chemical, and physical. Forensic
scientists use a range of methods and techniques to process these types of evidence, which
range from ballistics and even blood tests. On key procedure that is common in most crime
scenes is fingerprint analysis. This is a significant find in most cases as fingerprints tend to have
unique patterns significant to everyone. The analysis would vary from as simple as using a
microscope to identify these qualities to using technology that can achieve comparable results
just faster and better. These then are uploaded to a larger database for comparison.
https://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/prints/#:~:text=Fingerprint%20analysis%20has%20b
een%20used,another%20involving%20the%20same%20person.
Another vital technique used by forensic scientists on a day-to-day basis is DNA analysis. This
categorizes biological evidence such as blood, saliva and even hair. This evidence is usually
used to identify suspects or even victims. DNA evidence is one of the most conclusive pieces of
evidence compared to physical or chemical.
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/1978-forensics-and- dna#:~:text=Forensic
%20scientists%20can%20use%20DNA,to%20this%20is%20identical%20 twins.
In addition, forensic scientists also process and analyze chemical evidence.
, Physical Evidence: Hair sample
Evidence Analysis
Suspect 1: The hair evidence retrieved from the crime scene
underwent a thorough analysis using light
microscopy. This technique made it possible to
identify the hair's origin and potentially useful
information about the person it belonged to by
looking at the cuticle, medulla, cortex, and other
properties of the hair. The analysis concentrated
on differentiating human hair from animal hair and
evaluating certain characteristics like color, root
presence, and trauma indicators. The hair that was
connected to Suspect 1 showed signs of being
Suspect 2: human hair during the examination. It had a black
coloring and a medulla diameter of 13
micrometers, which supported its human ancestry.
The hair's root was present, indicating that it was
pulled out brusquely, implying involvement in a
violent altercation. These findings confirm Suspect
1's involvement in the case and are consistent with
hair evidence discovered at the crime site. The hair
that belonged to Suspect 2 in contrast showed
signs of being animal hair and resembled cat hair.
The medulla's diameter, which was 63
Suspect 3: micrometers, was clearly different from
characteristics of human hair. The fact that
Suspect 2's hair is unrelated to the occurrence is
further supported by the fact that the color did not
match the hair at the crime scene. Under a
microscope, Suspect 3's hair had features like
those of human hair. In contrast to the hair
samples from the other suspects, it seemed thicker
and was colored red.
The absence of a visible root, however, raised the
question of whether Suspect 3 had used hair dye to
change their natural hair color, which created
doubts about the analysis. To determine the
importance of Suspect 3's hair in relation to the
crime scene evidence, additional testing and
examinations would be necessary.
Conclusion: Using light microscopy, the hair evidence that was recovered from the crime
scene was thoroughly examined. This technique made it possible to identify the hair's origin
and potentially useful information about the person it belonged to by looking at the cuticle,
medulla, cortex, and other properties of the hair. The analysis concentrated on differentiating
human hair from animal hair and evaluating certain characteristics like colour, root presence,
