Forensic evidence: Materializing bodies, materializing crimes

Abstract

Based on an ethnographic study of fingerprint and DNA evidence practices in the Swedish judicial system, this article analyzes the materialization of forensic evidence. It argues that forensic evidence, while popularly understood as firmly rooted in materiality, is inseparably technoscientific and cultural. Its roots in the material world are entangled threads of matter, technoscience, and culture that produce particular bodily constellations within and together with a particular sociocultural context. Forensic evidence, it argues further, is co-materialized with crimes as well as with particular bodily and social constellations. Consequently, the article suggests that an analysis of how forensic evidence is produced can contribute to feminist understandings of the inseparability of sex and gender: understanding bodies as ongoing technoscientific-materialcultural practices of materialization may be a fruitful approach to analysing their complexity, and the relationships in which they are placed, without surrendering to either cultural or biological determinism.

Forensic DNA phenotyping and its politics of legitimation and contestation: Views of forensic geneticists in Europe

“…In such biolegal contexts, whereas multiple actors interact and whereas the social, scientific and technical are irredeemably bonded together (Kruse, 2010) In other words, according to the narratives of interviewed forensic geneticists, accountability entails not only the fulfillment of technical requirements in laboratory work but also the management of public expectations of performance, responsiveness and morality to a broad range of people and institutions (Yakel, 2001). Such enactments of accountability thereby ends up functioning to protect forensic geneticists' roles by projecting an image of scientists as engaged with the societal implications of their work:…”

The (De)materialization of Criminal Bodies in Forensic DNA Phenotyping

“…Conceiving materialization within forensic science as an activity that involves and is co-constituted by matter, technoscientific practices, legal framings and cultural understanding (Kruse, 2010), we propose the concept of (de)materialization of criminal bodies. Such a concept is particularly useful to approach the views of forensic geneticists on forensic DNA phenotyping because it demonstrates how such professionals juxtapose the defence and unsettling of forensic DNA phenotyping claims.…”

Embodied truths and authentic selves: The constitution of evidence and credibility in rape cases

“…Lynch et al (2010) have questioned the superior status DNA evidence has acquired and argue that DNA evidence, much like any other type of evidence, depends on a fallible combination of technical and legal practices, administrative assurances and circumstantial knowledge—all of which, in addition to the biology of DNA, create the meaning and evidentiary value of DNA. According to Kruse (2010), it is the materiality of forensic evidence that seems to make it reliable and tangible, evoking confidence in its ability to provide impartial and certain knowledge. Kruse further argues that societal expectations of forensic evidence tend to give precedence to matter over meaning, underestimating the discursive dimension and the mutability of meaning.…”

“…As a result, the Compensation Authority problematises a lack of forensic evidence and tends to deny compensation in cases without any forensic evidence. There is a clear tendency to value physical evidence based on the body to establish a concrete and objective basis for legal judgments (Kruse, 2010;Valverde, 2003). At the same time, testimonial evidence and circumstantial evidence are silenced.…”