I spent the five happiest years of my life in a morgue. As a forensic scientist in the Cleveland coroner’s office I analyzed gunshot residue on hands and clothing, hairs, fibers, paint, glass, DNA, blood and many other forms of trace evidence, as well as crime scenes. Now I'm a certified latent print examiner and CSI for a police department in Florida. I also write a series of forensic suspense novels, turning the day job into fiction. My books have been translated into six languages.
Nothing's really 'dumb' since every case involves, a minimum, property loss or inconvenience. Criminals can be dumb...the best example I can think of was when a bunch of boys broke the glass in a door to get into a jewelry store, couldn't find much to take, then were hightailing it out of there as the alarm rang and one was trying to climb back out the broken window and not having much luck when his buddy barreled through the other door simply by pushing the push bar on it. The video was hilarious.
My lab doesn’t have the ability to test vials of any time. We would send any liquid samples to the state lab.
That entirely depends on the requirements of the hiring agency. Since they’d probably require advanced schooling so hirees would wind up being older. It also might have to do with liability if the person would need to drive agency vehicles, etc.
I honestly have no idea, I never did a grad program. Are there any advisors at your target schools that you can ask? But I sympathize—I had the same problem with Organic Chemistry. I got A’s in General Chemistry, but I just never ‘got’ Organic. Best of luck to you!
Subway Store Manager
Bar Mitzvah DJ
Sushi Chef
Yes, unlike what you see on television, evidence doesn’t necessarily ‘prove’ anything. It all depends on circumstances. If the victim’s blood is on the suspect’s shirt and he says he never met her, that’s vital evidence. If he found the body and tried to revive her, then it likely means nothing. Or bloodstains might tell me the victim was stabbed six inches away from the wall, but that doesn’t tell me who stabbed him. But if the perpetrator is caught and describes what happened, the bloodstains might corroborate or disprove his story. I hope that helps.
No. I do lots of stuff detectives don’t do, like lab analysis, scene reconstruction, latent print comparison, etc. And they do tons of stuff I don’t do, like track down victims/witnesses/suspects and interview them, run criminal histories, request search warrants, and so on. So our jobs are really very different. We are there to provide the forensic support for the case, but forensic topics are only part of any case. Hope that helps!
I couldn't tell you--I haven't personally done any studies of bystanders at a shooting. GSR analysis is usually testing for primer residue, which can escape from the gun when fired. So someone could have GSR on their hands if they handled a gun, if they touched a surface near to where a gun was fired, if they handled the gun after it was fired, etc. This is why, though they've stated this on television every day for fifty years, having gunshot residue on your hands doesn't prove you fired a gun. Not having gunshot residue on your hands doesn't prove you have not fired a gun. The particles are very tiny and easily dislodged. These are some of the reasons why most agencies don't do gunshot residue analysis any more. Hope that helps!
-OR-
(max 20 characters - letters, numbers, and underscores only. Note that your username is private, and you have the option to choose an alias when asking questions or hosting a Q&A.)
(A valid e-mail address is required. Your e-mail will not be shared with anyone.)
(min 5 characters)
By checking this box, you acknowledge that you have read and agree to Jobstr.com’s Terms and Privacy Policy.
-OR-
(Don't worry: you'll be able to choose an alias when asking questions or hosting a Q&A.)