Skip to main content

Forensic Science - Sanjukta Mondal ***(*)

The forensic scientist's work forms a fascinating part of crime drama, with the pathologist playing a big supporting role in many police procedurals, while some shows such as the various CSI series, Silent Witness, Bones, Waking the Dead drive the action from the forensics. It's not surprising, then, that Sanjukta Mondal makes good use of this TV introduction to this science both to introduce real concepts, but also to point out where the fictional versions get it wrong.

It's also essential to cover, as she does, the reality that forensic work has itself slipped up. The book's introduction finishes with a reference to the key phrase 'every contact leaves a trace' becoming a guiding principle, but then tells us 'Does that mean forensic science is foolproof? The answer is no. It comes with its own set of pitfalls.' And these pitfalls will form a significant part of telling the story of the development of forensic science as a discipline.

Although TV shows feature reguarly, the first fictional focus is on written detective science with Poe's Dupin and particularly Sherlock Holmes getting a look in as an inspiration for the real thing. We then take more of a dive into that 'every contact' concept to see the ways such contacts can be left and detected - and how technology has changed our abilities over the years. From there, Mondal moves on to toxicology - here Game of Thrones gets a mention as a fictional starter, but Agatha Christie, with her regular use of poison in her mysteries, takes centre stage.

From there we move onto 'crimes of past and present' - obviously this spends a lot of time on cold cases, where the Bones TV show provides the fictional factor (the 'present' part reflects the way that even with warmer cases, skeletal remains can be important). After taking a dip into the world of art crime (where real life forger Tom Keating provides a better story than any fiction), the final parts of the book take in forensic limitations and some TV show debunking. It's always fun to point out failures in dramas, though I'm not sure the debunking the ideal way to pull together the book.

My star rating for this book is ***(*) - in terms of the interesting stories and background I think it rates four stars, but Mondal's writing style can be a little breathless for my taste and the overall structure of the book feels a little confused. There are also a few little slips - notably that quote in the introduction was from the French forensic pioneer Edmond Locard, who, we are told, coined it in the seventeenth century - Locard was born in the late 1800s, and appears to have coined the phrase in the early 20th century. I can only assume it's a typo as there's quite a lot on Locard later in the book, assigned to the correct period.

If you enjoy a forensic science TV show, though, this is the ideal book to fill in some details of where it all came from. 

Paperback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mathematics with Love – Mary Stopes-Roe *****

Admittedly it’s early days (this review is written in January), but this, for me, is the surprise hit of the year so far! I approached this book with trepidation, but found it absolutely delightful. It is described on the cover as the “courtship correspondence of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb”, and contains a series of letters between Wallis and his cousin and eventual wife Molly Bloxham, along with some useful annotation by their daughter, Mary. The courtship itself is not without difficulties, as Wallis was 18 years older than the 17-year-old Molly at the start of the correspondence, and her father, not surprisingly, wasn’t too pleased about the interest of such an elderly suitor, but that isn’t the only reason the letters are interesting – it’s also because of maths, and Wallis’s position in the UK as the engineering hero of the Second World War. (Incidentally, it seemed very strange to see letters addressed to “Barnes” – I had always assumed Barnes Wallis was a ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...
Post a Comment
Read more