Court TV Host: Our guests today, Norah Rudin and Keith Inman are both forensic scientists. They've worked on two books together, one about forensics, and "criminalistics" (which they can tell us about) and another about DNA.

Court TV Host: Our guests are here! Welcome Norah and Keith.

Keith Inman: Thanks, it's great to be here

Norah Rudin: Thanks for having us. We expect lots of great questions!

Marty2634 asks: Hello, How does the process of examining DNA testing work?

Keith Inman: The first thing you must do is get the DNA away from the fabric - then you purify the DNA.

Norah Rudin: Then you need to pick a test system.

Keith Inman: …and finally type it with a variety of DNA test systems.

Marty2634 asks: Hello Norah and Keith, How has DNA testing changed the criminal justice system in terms of whether someone is innocent or guilty of a particular crime?

Norah Rudin: Actually, it is important to understand that any type of physical evidence can only indicate an association or tie a person to a crime scene. NO physical evidence can indicate actual guilt or innocence.

Keith Inman: It greatly helps the trier of fact know who might be the donor of a sample. But, the trier of fact must put that into the context of a case to decide if the person is guilty or not guilty.

Norah Rudin: However, DNA is very useful in that it provides a direct link from a sample of biological evidence to a person.

Keith Inman: I think juries have benefited greatly from being quite sure about the identity of a blood donor, so they may factor that into the rest of the evidence.

Marty2634 asks: Hello, have either of you worked on a high profile case involving DNA testing?

Keith Inman: Almost all of our cases are high profile; or at least have very high stakes!

racam_us asks: Is DNA reliable enough to either spare or take someone's life?

Norah Rudin: Again, DNA, or for that matter any physical evidence, provide one piece of information about a crime.

Keith Inman: As we have said, DNA provides only one part of the puzzle, it is a mistake to think that DNA alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

Norah Rudin: It must be considered in the context of the case and along with other evidence, both physical and otherwise and considered by the trier of fact (the judge or jury).

abercrombiesoccergrl00 asks: How hard was it to become a forensic pathologist?

Keith Inman: Criminalistics is the examination of physical evidence, and is not associated with pathology, which examines the body itself.

Norah Rudin: To become a pathologist, you must first become a medical doctor, then undergo even more schooling.

Keith Inman: The way I explain it to friends is that I get everything from the skin out, and the pathologist gets everything from the skin in!

Norah Rudin: To become a criminalist, you must have a degree in a physical science, then also undergo at least more training, if not more education.

Court TV Host: Let me ask something that came up on Crier Today -- the difference between criminalistics and criminology -- and how does that fit in with forensics?

Court TV Host: Forensic science, I mean.

Norah Rudin: The difference between criminalistics and criminology is that criminalistics is really the study of physical evidence as it pertains to the legal arena, and criminology is the study of sociological and psychological aspects of criminal justice and criminal behavior.

Keith Inman: The word forensic comes from the Latin "forensis" - which means to debate. The word forensic then came to mean anything associated with a court proceeding, (since a lot of debate happens there). Forensic in front of any other discipline means the application of that discipline to a legal proceeding. Forensic science is the application of science to some court proceeding.

rockn_roll_heart asks: what kinds of crimes are these resources used in? I would think only murder, rape, federal offenses? Is that true?

Keith Inman: There is so much work to do in a crime lab with so few people, that usually only rapes and murders get worked.

Norah Rudin: Certainly physical evidence can be used to understand "what happened" in a variety of different crimes, both criminal and civil.

Keith Inman: That is not to say that criminalistics cannot be applied to other crimes, such as burglary. It's just that we are too strapped for resources to do anything other than the most serious crimes.

warhorse46 asks: Do you know if there was as much controversy over fingerprints as there is over the DNA base?

Keith Inman: Oh yes! It took almost 25 years for fingerprints to be accepted as evidence in courts. It just wasn't believed.

Norah Rudin: In fact, attorneys have recently begun to reexamine the scientific basis of fingerprint comparison, and it is being challenged in courtrooms today.

Keith Inman: If you mean was there controversy over the establishment of the fingerprint database (similar to the DNA database), then no, that has had a quiet history.

Norah Rudin: Although most or all of us probably believe that fingerprints are individualizing evidence, it is the ability to explicate the basis for a conclusion that is less well defined.

Keith Inman: Fingerprints are not considered as intrusive or revealing as DNA.

wedoifyudo asks: Do you provide your services to both sides of a case?

Norah Rudin: As a private consultant, yes, I am an equal opportunity analyst.

Keith Inman: I work for the state of California; no.

fire_bat777 asks: Have there been cases of fingerprints not being accurate?

Norah Rudin: There was an interesting case in Scotland last year where two different analysts each found 16 points of comparison, but they were 16 different points. American fingerprint examiners concluded that the prints were NOT a match - the defendant was not convicted.

Keith Inman: There have been some few cases of forgeries, where law enforcement agents have forged the fingerprints to convict someone. Fortunately forensic science was able to uncover the forgery!

malemorningangel asks: How do you feel about the way evidence was handled by the criminalists in the Simpson matter?

Norah Rudin: Actually, in science we try to think more than "feel" (sorry couldn't help that, it is such a common error).

Keith Inman: There was no evidence that the evidence was mishandled by any lab personnel. The scene was different and difficult, where some different choices could have been made. But overall, little evidence was compromised by the collection and analysis.

tjmunch asks: What do you guys think of shows like Homicide and how they depict you and your work space?

Norah Rudin: Actually, I must say I have never watched Homicide, but officers have told me they enjoy the show and "feel" that it is a fairly reasonable depiction of their work - however.....

Keith Inman: Homicide: Life in the Streets is a good depiction of police work. My only complaint is that frequently the lab folks are depicted as geeks. Not our image of ourselves.

Norah Rudin: In general, TV shows, books, movies etc, tend to contain some inaccuracies about scientific evidence. One of our goals is to improve the public's understanding of Forensic Science through education

Keith Inman: The greatest inaccuracy is how fast we can get an answer. Generally science is a slower process than will fit in a one-hour time slot.

wesfart_2000 asks: So what exactly do you do at your job? I want to know because I want to become a forensic psychologist, but I know it isn't just going to crime scenes. What else do you do??

amy_and_waeil asks: What kinds of jobs are available as a forensic scientist? I'm interested but I've read that there are basically 2 categories - the hard-core scientist who works crime scenes at all hours of the night, and then the scientist who does routine lab analyses. Is this true?

Norah Rudin: To answer the first question, fields such as forensic psychology and criminal profiling are really in a different category than the criminalistics, or physical evidence examination that we do in the crime lab.

Keith Inman: Depending on the jurisdiction, all analysts will work in the lab. If you get called to the crime scene at 1am in the morning, that's extra!

Norah Rudin: In the crime lab, we examine physical evidence using both our senses and often some sophisticated instrumentation in an attempt to provide the investigator or sometimes the defendant with some information that might tell what happened. This is then used by the criminal justice system (read that court).

Keith Inman: All crime lab work is science work, though, whether it's performed in the lab or in the field.

Court TV Host: Speaking of crime scenes...

malemorningangel asks: When you approach a crime scene, do the police limit your access?

Keith Inman: If I approach as a criminalist, I will have to show some ID that says I can be there, yes. The most difficult part of a crime scene is defining its limits - is it the inside of the house, the inside and outside, or the whole block?

Marty2634 asks: Describe what it's like to testify in a case as a forensic scientist?

Norah Rudin: Well, like everything else in forensic science - it depends. Sometimes opposing counsel (that could be the prosecutor or defense attorney) just wants "the facts ma'am" -- and sometimes they are out to personally discredit you.

Keith Inman: And don't forget you have no control over the questions, cannot object -- every one is looking at you, and someone is writing down every word you utter.

Norah Rudin: What is true is that this is one part of the job that really distinguishes it from other sciences, and it is also the part which some folks can't handle, however much they may enjoy the lab work. The trick is not to take it personally, and above all: tell the truth.

Court TV Host: We've had lots of questions from people interested in going into forensic science...

elcartel_rto asks: I'm planning on going into the field of forensic medicine. Do you have any recommendations as far as schools that I should go to?

amy_and_waeil asks: What kind of degrees do you have to become a forensic scientist? Is that actually a degree itself, or what?

daria_29431 asks: I am interested in going into forensics. Where can I find more info on this?

Norah Rudin: As we mentioned previously, forensic medicine or forensic pathology is really a different field than forensic science. You have to get a medical degree and then some more specialized training to do this.

Keith Inman: Most laboratories require a Bachelor's degree in a physical science (meaning lots of chemistry and physics). There is an ever-increasing pressure to have an advanced degree as well.

Norah Rudin: As far as more information, we have an FAQ list at our web site. That's www.forensicdna.com. And also a way to get even some more detailed information from there.

Keith Inman: As more emphasis is placed on physical evidence, more will be required of its analysts.

kathy_nascarfan asks: Do you always have to deal with gory stuff to be able to work in forensics

Keith Inman: Yes, and in large quantities!

warhorse46 asks: What would contaminate a specimen enough to render it unusable?

Norah Rudin: That is an excellent question, and one that everyone worries about a lot!

Keith Inman: Contamination is defined as any substance placed into or onto evidence by a responsible party.

Norah Rudin: So one answer to your question might be, if a substance contains human DNA and more specifically DNA from a reference sample that might give a false positive result. That is the worst case scenario in DNA anyway.

Keith Inman: Anything that is present in a sample before collection is considered part of the sample, and not contamination.

Norah Rudin: Both at the crime scene and in the laboratory, we take extreme care to minimize all kinds of contamination, but especially this type.

Keith Inman: In that case, it may be a mixed sample, and the interpretation would be difficult, but it would not be considered contaminated. One example of contamination would be improper storage of biological samples where the evidence is packed wet and airtight, allowing microbes to grow. This would potentially destroy the human DNA from the microbial contamination.

Court TV Host: Here's a kind of related question...

malemorningangel asks: How long are bodily fluids viable outside of the body?

Norah Rudin: Well, you don't really mean viable, because the cells will die very quickly, but we can talk a bit about what conditions might eventually make a sample hard or impossible to type.

Keith Inman: The best way to preserve a sample is to dry it and get it cold. For dry and cold specimens, typing can be performed decades after collection. Clearly, DNA is very stable, since anthropologists are examining the DNA from ancient specimens.

malemorningangel asks: Talk about the future of forensic science.

Norah Rudin: The future of forensic science clearly lies in miniaturization and automation. Among other things, this will enable the forensic scientist to more easily be at the scene and be able to understand the origin of the evidence and subsequently, how best to analyze it.

Keith Inman: I think we can see analyses being performed faster, and in the field by qualified analysts. We should be move to the day when investigative leads can be provided to the detective in the field, rather than months later in the lab.

Norah Rudin: Eventually databases for all kinds of evidence will likely be available almost instantaneously by satellite.

warhorse46 asks: Where is your book available to buy?

Norah Rudin: You can purchase any of our books either directly through Amazon or better yet through the Criminalistics Bookstore on our site www.forensicdna.com

Court TV Host: Thanks Norah and Keith, for being our guests online today. We hope you'll come back again.

Keith Inman: Our pleasure - we hope to be back at some point in the future

Norah Rudin: Thanks.