ABSTRACT
The hallmark of any successful crime scene investigation is a team effort whose director, like the maestro of an orchestra, is its leader. How well the team performs is related to how well its leader uses the scientific method, thinks critically and creatively, opens lines of communication with subordinates, and applies inductive, deductive, and abductive logic. If done properly the culture of science wraps its arms around the team and protects it from making critical mistakes, introducing subjectivity, and conducting a biased investigation. This is true because science itself is self-correcting. Mistakes, when found, are corrected, and biases, through team effort and the application of the scientific method, are avoided. As Chisum and Turvey [2] wrote,
When asked how the crime was solved or the most probative evidence located, no crime scene investigator would consciously say,
“I used the scientific method to solve this crime.”• “The scientific method pin-pointed the most important evidence at that scene.”• “My creative employment of induction and deduction led me to the killer.”• “I ensured that I had an open line of communication with my subordinates.”•
That is not how science and scene investigation work. Most if not all crime scene investigators never consciously consider their cognitive thoughts, that is, the reasoning process they employ after or during the investigation. It becomes and should be second nature. Their approach is based on education, intuition, training, and experience. The scene scientist’s approach is different, however, because it is based on deductive and inductive reasoning buttressed by education, intuition, training, and experience.
