: Developing Categories for the Literature Review

The CSI effect at university: forensic science students’ television viewing and perceptions of ethical issues

Roslyn Weavera*, Yenna Salamonsona, Jane Kocha,b and Glenn Porterc

aUniversity of Western Sydney, Family and Community Health Research Group; bUniversity of Technology, Sydney, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health; cUniversity of Western Sydney,

School of Science and Health

(Received 3 January 2012; final version received 3 May 2012)

Although the so-called ‘CSI effect’ has received attention in the literature for the influence of forensic science television on jurors’ expectations of evidence admitted into trials, less research explores the influence of such television programs on university students enrolled in forensic science degrees. This paper describes the quantitative and qualitative results of a study of forensic science students regarding the forensic-related television programs they watch, such as CSI, Bones and Dexter. We asked students to share their impressions of the accuracy, ethics, professionalism and role models in the programs. The results show that forensic science students are almost universally disparaging about the realism of these programs and have mixed impressions of how the programs portray forensic science professionalism and ethics. Most students believed that the programs gave an unrealistic representation of the profession to the public; yet students were also able to identify positive elements for recruitment and education purposes.

Keywords: forensic science; CSI effect; students; television; education; Australia

Introduction

Popular media have suggested that crime science television programs such as CSI may influence how lay jurors consider forensic evidence during criminal trials1–8. This influence has been described as the CSI effect and named after the popular television drama. It is suggested that jurors confuse the capacity of forensic evidence with the fictional idealisation of forensic evidence as portrayed on the television program2. Goodman-Delahunty and Verbrugge4 suggest that, despite the popular media claims, there is little objective evidence to support the notion that crime scene dramas such as CSI have a negative impact on jury verdicts. Wise5 indicated that there are two issues relating to the ‘CSI effect’ proposition, with each affecting either the prosecution or defence position; (i) the jurors held an inflated value of the forensic evidence producing guilty verdicts2–5,9, or (ii) in the absence of forensic evidence or when the evidence failed to reach the juries’ idealised expectations the juries would acquit2–3,5. Evidence of the influence of the CSI effect, as claimed in the popular media, has been mixed1–9.

Although the so-called CSI effect has received attention in the literature for the influence of CSI on jurors’ expectations of forensic evidence admitted into criminal

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences

Vol. 44, No. 4, December 2012, 381–391

ISSN 0045-0618 print/ISSN 1834-562X online

� 2012 Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2012.691547

http://www.tandfonline.com

trials1–9, less research explores the influence of such programs on forensic science education. Of the work that has been done, previous research has linked the glamorised portrayal of forensic scientists in popular culture to an increase in the number of students interested in forensic science10–13. Although most of the more well-known forensic science television programs are American, the popularity of the genre extends internationally, and many more forensic science courses have been established in Australia14 and the UK10,15, as well as the US14,16,17.

Beyond the growth of the courses, other research has also raised concerns over whether television programs may have an adverse effect on forensic science students. Students may have unrealistic expectations of the course, if not for their career as well11. The CSI series generally constructs science and evidence as infallible, and emphasises their realism and credibility18. Bergslien19 suggests that the actual teaching of forensic science in secondary and tertiary educationmay inadvertently reinforce the CSI effect; others caution that educators may need to adjust their teaching in response to the television genre11. Undergraduates may be motivated to study forensic science because of CSI-like programs, and this could provide the impetus to educators to develop resources to enhance the understanding of the basic principles of science and critical thinking. However, Bergslien19 asserts that in some courses, less challenging teaching approaches can reduce the complexity of forensic science to a standard laboratory activity with a clear-cut solution, as in the television programs. Rather than this, Bergslien suggests some teaching strategies that help students develop realistic expectations about how real forensic science is carried out19. Some researchers suggest that educators in crime-related disciplines can combat the inaccurate images in popular culture by including courses on the media, to encourage students to be more critical about how their profession is handled in news and other media20.

With mainstream media sources attributing the rise in popularity in forensic studies to the heightened profile of the profession because of these shows, it is timely to assess the ways in which forensic students engage with popular culture depictions of their future profession. Little work has been done in this area, although an American study on forensic anthropology students concluded that there was no difference in how many CSI-like programs were consumed by students who wished to pursue forensic science and those who did not21.

The aims of this study were to investigate the viewing habits of a sample of Australian forensic science students regarding the forensic-related television programs they watch, and their impressions of the accuracy, ethics, professionalism and role models in the shows. The purpose was to enhance our understanding of how forensic science students engage with popular images of their profession and to consider pedagogical implications of the findings.

Methods

Design

This study used a descriptive design to collect data on students’ perceptions of forensic science television programs. The survey questions were based on Czarny et al.’s survey22, which explored television viewing habits of medical and nursing students for the purpose of considering teaching strategies for bioethical issues in health. They asked students about specific contemporary television programs and what students thought of the accuracy, bioethical issues, and role models depicted in the shows. In our study, we adapted this instrument to the forensic science discipline

382 R. Weaver et al.

and included shows specific to this field: namely, CSI, CSI: Miami, CSI: New York, Bones, Dexter and NCIS. We chose these six programs based on current popular programs at the time of the survey. Students were given the option to nominate other forensic science television programs, and we aggregated these data as well; however, the overall percentage of participant-nominated shows was small and thus not generally reported here. Our survey included questions related to demographics, television viewing, and impressions of how the specific forensic science programs portrayed ethical and forensic science issues, as well as professionalism and role models. We also added questions about the image of forensic science on television programs. The survey concluded with a question asking if participants had any comments they wished to include on the topic of their profession in popular culture.

Study setting and sample

The study took place at a large university in New South Wales, Australia, between March and May of 2011 in the first semester. Forensic science students enrolled in all years of their three-year undergraduate program participated by completing surveys. The university’s human research ethics committee granted approval to conduct this project. Surveys were anonymous, and students were informed that their participation in the project was voluntary.

The study was part of a larger project exploring health sciences and forensic science students’ impressions of how their profession is represented in popular culture. This paper reports the results of forensic science students’ surveys.

Of the 215 students who were enrolled in the forensic science program, 135 (63%) completed the survey. Compared with all forensic students enrolled in the program, there were no significant differences in: (a) age (mean: 20.8 years in population versus 20.6 in sample, P¼ 0.889), (b) gender (68.4% females versus 68.1%, P¼ 0.965), and (c) country of birth (80.9% Australian-born versus 84.4%, P¼ 0.402).

Data collection and analysis

All students enrolled in the forensic science program were invited to participate in the study in their tutorials or lectures. A research assistant managed the recruitment for the study. Students were informed about the purpose of the study and were given an information sheet providing details of the project.

A research assistant entered the survey data into IBM SPSS Statistics 19. The data analysis process included descriptive statistics. As the continuous variable age was not normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to analyse group differences. For categorical variables, the chi-square test was used. Statistical significance was P5 0.05.

We performed further data analysis to examine if there were differences across years in the course and: (a) TV viewing habits of forensic science dramas; (b) important sources of information for participants for bioethical issues. No statistically significant group differences were uncovered between years of enrolment and TV viewing habits or participants’ self-report of important sources of information for bioethical issues.

Following quantitative data analysis, the members of the research team individually read the qualitative data and then discussed the data with each other. These data were drawn from responses to the final survey question: Is there anything

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 383

else you want to tell us about forensic television shows or forensic science role models? We also included any comments students wrote on their surveys to explain their other answers further. A research assistant entered the participants’ comments into Microsoft Word. The qualitative data analysis involved team members organising the data by themes in a conventional content analysis approach23 and discussing as a group, and we have used the data in this paper to elaborate on the quantitative results. Participants’ quotations have been corrected for spelling or readability where needed, and are presented here in numerical codes with year of enrolment.

Results

Table 1 presents the demographics of the study participants. The average age was 20.6 (SD 4.4), and approximately two-thirds of the sample were female (68.1%). Most students were born in Australia (84.4%) and just over half were in paid employment (57.0%); only one nominated working in forensic- or police-related employment.

Participants’ television viewing

The majority of the students had watched television in the past year (98.5%), ranging from sports (58.5%) to movies (97.0%). Forensic science shows were watched by 91.1% of the sample. Of these forensic science programs, NCIS (81.1%) and CSI (79.8%) had been viewed by the most students at some stage. Around two-thirds had seen CSI: Miami, Bones, and Dexter. However, the most frequently watched shows (at least once a week) were NCIS, Bones and Dexter. Approximately a third reported watching the top five most-frequently watched shows with family or friends. Participants’ television viewing habits are summarised in Table 2.

Table 1. Characteristics of forensic student participants (n ¼ 135).

Characteristic

Age, mean (SD) years (Range: 17 to 46 years) 20.6 (4.4) Sex, Female % 68.1 Country of birth, Australia % 84.4 Language spoken at home: English-speaking only % 82.2 Participating in part-time/paid employment during semester, Yes % 57.0

Table 2. Television viewing habits of forensic science students of forensic science dramas.

Forensic drama Ever

watched (%) Watched� once/

week (%) Watched with

family or friends (%)

NCIS 81.1 27.9 50.9 CSI 79.8 19.3 44.7 CSI: Miami 66.0 12.3 34.7 Bones 64.7 24.5 39.8 Dexter 61.9 24.8 33.0 CSI: New York 47.6 5.8 21.1 Criminal Minds 10.4 8.9 6.7 NCIS: LA 7.4 5.2 5.9

384 R. Weaver et al.

Ethical issues recalled by students from TV shows

When students were provided with a list of 12 ethical issues and asked if they remembered seeing any on the television programs, 65.2% to 80.0% of the sample reported seeing these issues. The most commonly recalled topics were contamination of evidence, conflict of interest, confidentiality, and evidence integrity. Students were then asked to rate how each issue was handled overall on the shows, and could choose from: Poor, Below Average, OK, and Best. The most common rating for these issues was Poor. Only three topics rated as OK, namely: evidence integrity, death and dying, and quality or value of life (Table 3).

When asked to rate the accuracy on a six-point Likert scale of how the top six programs depicted ethical and forensic science issues, students rated these shows with a median of 1 to 2 (0¼Not at all accurate, 5¼Very accurate). The qualitative data supported this, with students at times scathing of the shows – ‘inaccurate rubbish’ (Student 3, Year 1) – or suggesting that the programs give unrealistic ideas about the consequences for unethical behaviour. As one student stated, ‘TV show characters aren’t exactly going to get fired for not taking responsibility or contaminating evidence but, in reality of course you would get fired’ (Student 86, Year 1). Others were critical of the inaccuracy of the forensic science aspects, with one student saying: ‘I think the things they do on the shows are mostly correct, but the main difference is time. As on the show they figure everything out in a few days, but normally it can take weeks, months or even years to figure out the crime’ (Student 48, Year 1). Another participant added, ‘TV shows always give the misperception that forensics/science is easy and that we do more than we legally can’ (Student 119, Year 2).

Despite the negative views that most students had about the accuracy, some students could find value in watching the shows. Thus, even when acknowledging the shortcomings of the shows, some participants appreciated that the programs generate interest in their field: ‘Forensic TV shows are a good way of getting people into the profession but lack truth in what really goes behind the scenes’ (Student 47, Year 1). Similarly, another wrote ‘Gives an idea of different types of forensics you can go in to but not accurate/realistic in what they actually do beyond the general role’ (Student 6, Year 1).

Table 3. Recall of ethical issues on television forensic drama and ratings.

Ethical issue Recall (Yes) %

Most common rating %

Contamination of evidence 80.0 Poor 37.0 Conflict of interest 80.0 Poor 33.3 Confidentiality 80.0 Poor & below average (tie) 33.3 Evidence integrity 80.0 OK 32.4 Professional misconduct 77.8 Poor 37.1 Death and dying 77.8 OK 32.4 Evidence continuity 77.0 Poor 37.5 Informed consent 76.3 Poor 35.0 Quality or value of life 74.1 OK 43.0 Lying under oath in court 71.9 Poor 33.0 Forensic errors 71.1 Poor 41.7 Education for healthcare professionals 65.2 Poor 44.3

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 385

Another participant criticised the shows but saw an educational element: ‘I think that it is good in the sense that they make people think, but bad in the sense that they exploit the science and aren’t true to it, cause people spend their whole lives trying to learn this stuff and they just throw it around like it doesn’t matter’ (Student 5, Year 1). One student found more of value, writing, ‘watching forensic television shows I learn more about techniques and critical thinking towards ethical and practical views’ (Student 125, Year 2).

Almost half (49.6%) the students said that they had been asked for their opinion by friends or family members on an ethical or forensic science issue they had viewed on a television show. One participant wrote that ‘They ask if the science is true’ (Student 5, Year 1). In regard to discussing the ethical and forensic science issues on TV programs with their friends only, less than half (40.5%) of the students reported that they had done this.

When presented with a range of sources that might inform students about bioethical issues, students ranked their university school of sciences as the most important (67.7%). Other important sources included family (54.3%) and friends (40.0%). Television dramas rated as important for only 3% of the sample (Figure 1).

Professionalism

The surveys included a list of six professional ideals: responsibility; altruism/honesty/ integrity; caring and compassion; respect; accountability; and leadership. Most students (approximately 80%) remembered viewing these on the forensic science programs, and the majority believed that they were positively depicted.

Despite these positive ratings, the qualitative comments highlighted some negative aspects around professionalism, with one participant noting ‘TV shows

Figure 1. Important sources of information selected by participants for bioethical issues.

386 R. Weaver et al.

set unrealistic standards or over simplify work with a lack of professionalism’ (Student 75, Year 3).

Role models

We provided the students with a list of the major characters in each of the six programs and asked them to choose the characters they wanted most and least to be like in their own forensic science careers. They could also nominate other characters. The most popular characters were Abby Sciuto from NCIS (37.8%), and Temperance Brennan from Bones (23.7%). Dexter Morgan from Dexter was also a popular character (19.3%), although slightly more students disliked him as a role model (20.7%), and we note here, of course, that Dexter obviously differs from other characters by operating as both hero (a highly-skilled forensic scientist) and antihero (a vigilante serial killer). The most unpopular character was Horatio Caine from CSI: Miami (24.4%), as rated by the students (Figure 2).

The qualitative data elaborated on these results, with some students explaining that they admired the skills of specific characters but not necessarily their other traits. For example, although Temperance Brennan, Jack Hodgins (Bones) and Abby Sciuto were popular choices for role models, one participant indicated that this was ‘Skillwise but not people wise’ (Student 5, Year 1). The polarised views about Dexter Morgan as a role model are encapsulated in one participant who chose Dexter as a

Figure 2. Forensic drama characters: role models in professional career.

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 387

role model but noted, rather obviously, ‘Without being a serial killer’ (Student 17, Year 1).

Some students also indicated in the open-ended answers that they found role models beyond those in television programs, with one student reflecting on the importance of real-life inspirations: ‘A girl from the forensic services group came in to my work and I would most want to be like her. Not some actress’ (Student 133, Year 2). Another confirmed that superior role models are found outside popular culture, writing ‘The best role models are the people working in the profession’ (Student 73, Year 2). These points reflect the fact that the participants’ comments were usually very negative about the realism and accuracy of these shows.

The image of forensic science in television shows

The surveys asked students what they thought of how forensic science was portrayed on television. Although most students believed the shows portrayed their profession as exciting (98.4%) and positive (92.9%), they also thought the programs gave an unrealistic representation of the real science (78.4%). Furthermore, just over half (51.6%) believed that there should be less forensic science characters on crime shows, and about the same percentage (47.6%) felt that the characters were not good role models. In addition, the majority (80.8%) believed that TV shows give the public wrong ideas about what forensic scientists actually do.

These views were reflected in the open-ended answers, where students were often negative about the public perception of forensic science because of television. Even those who enjoyed the shows often qualified this enjoyment with a warning about the misinformation caused by the shows in the public: ‘Forensic science TV shows are fun and interesting to watch, however they do at times give false representations about what forensic science in real life is about’ (Student 37, Year 1). Others confirmed this, saying ‘I think people often get the wrong idea about forensics’ (Student 110, Year 2), or: ‘Detectives and forensic investigators & many numerous roles in TV convince the general public that it is all one job’ (Student 121, Year 2). Some comments raised the danger of inaccurate portrayals of forensic science on television, with one participant writing that ‘Television shows give people the wrong idea. When evidence is put to court, the jury will want all the evidence to point to the suspect before they will convict them as that is what happens on the shows’ (Student 11, Year 2).

Discussion

This study confirms previous research in other disciplines that most students watch their profession on television, with other studies showing that most medical and nursing students watch medical programs22,24. As the participants noted, one of the positive elements of these shows is that portraying forensic science in popular television programs can enhance recruitment and provide ideas about the spectrum of technologies and specialties available in the career. The participants’ comments about this topic (‘Forensic TV shows are a good way of getting people into the profession’) confirm the research pointing to the positive aspect of these shows in attracting people who may otherwise be unaware of the profession11,14–17.

Given almost half our sample discussed ethical or science issues from television programs with family or friends, it is possible to see the value of exploring the shows

388 R. Weaver et al.

in forensic science curricula. Given the importance of teaching ethics well in forensic science13, this may be seen as an effective strategy of teaching ethical issues in an engaging way. It would appear that the participants in our study were well able to remember ethical important issues from the programs, such as contamination of evidence, conflict of interest, confidentiality, and evidence integrity. This is not to suggest that television is an important source of information for them; as it is, the results show students rank television extremely low as an influence. The participants in this project, moreover, are enrolled in a course designed to challenge them to consider issues associated with forensic science reliability, such as methods of expressing forensic findings, effects of contextual bias from police investigators and defence counsel, contamination issues, evidence integrity and continuity, statistical representation and inference, and visual communication in forensic science, which are important issues to cover in any forensic science curricula.

However, most participants indicated that the depiction of science on television was inaccurate and unrealistic. This finding seems to contradict previous research that raises concerns that students in forensic science may have unrealistic and exaggerated ideas of what their jobs will entail because of television programs11,20. Just as the CSI effect in jurors is a disputed notion and can lack evidence to support it25,26, we suggest that students are more sceptical of these shows than researchers or educators might assume. Yet although participants criticised the science, ethics and role models provided by the programs, our results show that most students watch the television programs and find them to be positive representations of forensic science, and can enjoy watching them. Their critiques also indicate that television images of forensic science can help in some ways their learning of science, and ethical issues, and also the development of their professional identity to some extent.

The positive assessment of forensic science professionalism on television by students (80%) is unexpected, given it is possible to see deviations from professional ideals at many times across forensic science programs. Yet this finding perhaps reflects the narrative construction of many forensic science characters as honourable, and committed to seeking justice for victims of crime. The popularity of some characters over others may explain this, with role models such as Brennan and Hodgins (Bones) and Abby (NCIS) noteworthy for their high skills and intellect, despite their unusual personality quirks. We suggest that the higher level of popularity for Abby might well be explained by the fact that the character is young and female, which largely reflects the cohort we surveyed. This is not to imply that students primarily find role models in fiction or even prefer them. It is worth emphasising here that some participants’ comments give more credence to role models from within the forensic science industry, and this is reflected in the finding that almost half the sample believed television characters were poor role models in general. Indeed, more than half the students actually felt there should be less forensic science characters in crime shows, which perhaps suggests that they believe the forensic science profession is over-represented in popular culture – or, at the very least, is represented in such narrow or inaccurate ways that it would be preferable to avoid it entirely.

Although previous research has addressed the CSI effect at some length in the context of jurors’ expectations of forensic evidence, there is less work that explores this topic in university students. One of the strengths of this study is that it provides some answers for educators interested in how university students regard the popular image of forensic science. Despite educators’ concerns, it appears that forensic

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 389

science students – at least in our sample – are well able to distinguish fact from fiction and indeed are rather critical of the televisual representations of forensic science. A further strength is the mixed methods approach, which allows the qualitative data to enhance and elaborate on the quantitative data in ways that are sometimes lacking in other research.

The limitations of this study include being limited to one cohort of students in one university and thus it cannot be representative of all forensic science students. This research could be undertaken in other institutions elsewhere to explore any differences and similarities. We also acknowledge that our data deal solely with students’ perceptions of professionalism and that their understanding of professional behaviour is consequently likely to be evolving. Students’ field and work experience may also play a role in this. The qualitative data were also limited to those students who chose to write short responses to the survey questions. Richer data could be elicited with interviews.

Future research, therefore, could use in-depth qualitative interviews with students to explore this area further. Future studies could explore students’ reasons for their choice of forensic science. It would be interesting to compare the retention of those students whose entry into their course was influenced by CSI-like programs with those who were not, although such research relies on students’ awareness of this factor, which is necessarily difficult to measure. Closer analysis of the shows themselves and also research evaluating the effectiveness of including courses on media representations in forensic science education would help to further build our understanding of this important area of the images of forensic science in popular culture.

Acknowledgements

This project received funding from the University of Western Sydney Research Grant Scheme. Thank you to the students who participated in this project, and also to Maricris Algoso, Charmaine Miranda, and Ashleigh-Leane Gibbs for data collection and data entry.

References

1. Podlas K. ‘The CSI effect’: exposing the media myth. Fordham Intell Prop Media & Ent L J. 2006;16:429–465.

2. Cole SA, Dioso-Villa R. Investigating the ‘CSI effect’ effect: media and litigation crisis in criminal law. Stan L Rev. 2008–2009;61:1335–1374.

3. Goodman-Delahunty J, Tait D. DNA and the changing face of justice. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2006;8:97–106.

4. Goodman-Delahunty J, Verbrugge H. Reality, fantasy and the truth about CSI effects. InPsych. 2010;2:18–19.

5. Wise J. Providing the CSI treatment: criminal justice practitioners and the CSI effect. CICJ. 2010;21:383–399.

6. Harriss C. The evidence doesn’t lie: genre literacy and the ‘CSI’ effect. J Pop Film Televis. 2011;39:5–11.

7. Shelton DE, Kim YS, Barak G. A study of juror expectations and demands concerning scientific evidence: does the ‘CSI Effect’ exist? Vanderbilt J of Entertainment and Tech Law. 2006;9:331–368.

8. Thomas AP. The CSI effect: fact or fiction. Yale L J. 2006;115:70–72. 9. Tyler TR. Is the CSI effect good science? Yale L J. 2006;115:73–75. 10. New Engineering Foundation. Preparing for the future: applied and vocational science

provision at an intermediate level in further education colleges. London, 2008. 11. Durnal EW. Crime scene investigation (as seen on TV). Forensic Sci Int. 2010;199:1–5.

390 R. Weaver et al.

12. Colgan C. Teaching forensics, then and now. Edu Dig. 2002;68:59–61. 13. Capsambelis CR. So your student wants to be a crime scene technician? JCJE.

2002;13:113–127. 14. Kobus H, Liddy M. University forensic science programs: a student attraction strategy or

a value-adding partnership with industry? Forensic Sci Pol Manag. 2009;1:125–129. 15. Mennell J. The future of forensic and crime scene science: part II. A UK perspective on

forensic science education. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;157:S13–S20. 16. Cooley CM. Reforming the forensic science community to avert the ultimate injustice.

Stan L & Pol Rev. 2004;15:381–436. 17. Houck MM. CSI: Reality. Sci Am. 2006;295:84–89. 18. Cavender G, Deutsch SK. CSI and moral authority: the police and science. Crime Media

Cult 2007;3:67–81. 19. Bergslien E. Teaching to avoid the ‘CSI effect’. J Chem Educ. 2006;83:609–691. 20. Anderson JF, Mangels NJ, Langsam AH. The challenges of teaching criminological

theory: can academia deliver what the media promises? Crim Justice Stud Crit J Crime Law Soc. 2009;22:223–236.

21. McManus SE. Influence of the CSI effect on education and mass media. Department of Anthropology. MA thesis. Orlando: University of Central Florida; 2010.

22. Czarny MJ, Faden RR, Nolan MT, Bodensiek E, Sugarman J. Medical and nursing students’ television viewing habits: potential implications for bioethics. Am J Bioeth. 2008;8:1–8.

23. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1277–1288.

24. Weaver R, Wilson I. Australian medical students’ perceptions of professionalism and ethics in medical television programs. BMC Med Educ. 2011;11.50:1–6.

25. Brickell W. Is it the CSI effect or do we just distrust juries. Crim Just. 2008;23:10–17. 26. Holmgren JA, Fordham J. The CSI effect and the Canadian and the Australian jury. J

Forensic Sci. 2011;56:S63–S71.

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 391

Copyright of Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.