Abstract

Fundamental principles of forensic science have one of the most popular of these the exchange principle by Edmund Locard. Locard’s exchange principle is summed up in a statement as “Every contact leaves a trace”. In practical case scenarios it has been observed that such exchange of evidences might not occur at all in a perfectly committed crime. Since, the origins of Forensic Science were not supported by the larger scientific communities due to its indecisive nature. The fundamentals of any discipline of science have a lot of importance in its development in the long years. There has been no mathematical or statistical explanation for Locard’s exchange principle and thus, the reliability of the same has been always questioned. Some studies have suggested likelihood ratio or Bayes factor to support the exchange principle. While few suggest modification of the statement to bring clarity of this principle. It is necessary to match the criteria required for a statement to become a scientific principle with reference to Locard’s principle. The current article is an effort to measure the validity of Locard’s principle including its merit/demerits and encourage the scientific community for complying to standards and corrections required for wider application in field of criminal investigation.

• 1.   Good, G.A. (2019). Sciences of the Earth: an encyclopedia of events, people, and phenomena. Routledge.
• 2.   Saferstein, R. (2013). Criminalistics. Pearson Education.
• 3.   Inman, K., & Rudin, N. (2000). Principles and practice of criminalistics: the profession of forensic science. CRC Press.
• 4.   Erzinçlioğlu, Z., &Erzin, Z. (2004). The illustrated guide to forensics: True crime scene investigations. Barnes & Noble Books.
• 5.   Thornton, J.I., The snowflake paradigm, J. Forensic Sci., 31(2) 399–401, 1986.
• 6.   Locard, E., L’enquetecriminelle et les methodesscientifique, Ernest Flammarion, Paris, 1920.
• 7.   Locard, E., Manuel de TachniquePoliciere, Payot, Paris, 1923.
• 8.   Locard, E., Dust and its analysis, Police J., 1, 177, 1928.
• 9.   Locard, E., The analysis of dust traces, Part I– III, Am. J. Police Sci., 1, 276, 401, 496, 1930.
• 10.   Locard, E., Traité de criminalistique, J. Desvigne, Lyon, 1931-1940.
• 11.   Roux, C., Crispino, F., &Ribaux, O. (2012). From forensics to forensic science. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 24(1), 7-24.
• 12.   Hempel, C.G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation (Vol. 3). New York: Free Press.
• 13.   Magueijo, J., & Sorkin, R. D. (2007). Occam’s razor meets WMAP. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 377(1), L39-L43.
• 14.   Cole, S.A. (2010). Acculturating Forensic Science: What is Scientific Culture, and How Can Forensic Science Adopt It. Fordham Urb. LJ, 38, 435.
• 15.   Popper, K.R. (2015). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Central Works of Philosophy v4: Twentieth Century: Moore to Popper, 4, 262.
• 16.   Popper, K. (1953). Science: Conjectures and refutations. Philosophy of science, 104-10.
• 17.   Crispino, F., Ribaux, O., Houck, M., & Margot, P. (2011). Forensic science–A true science?. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 43(2-3), 157-176.
• 18.   National Academy of Science. Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. ISBN: 0-309-13131-6, 2009.21a, p. 238.
• 19.   Houck, Max Michael. An investigation into the foundational principles of forensic science. Diss. Curtin University, 2010.
• 20.   Thornton, J., Trace Evidence in Crime Reconstruction, in Crime Reconstruction, G. Chisum and B. Turvey, Editors. 2007, Academic Press: San Diego.
• 21.   Baharuddin, A.S., Harun, M.A.W., Ruskam, A., & Yacob, A.A.R. (2016). Law of Individuality and Locard’s Principle from Islamic Perspective. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 239.
• 22.   Loeve, A.J., Bilo, R.A., Emirdag, E., Sharify, M., Jansen, F.W., & Dankelman, J. (2013). In vitro validation of vaginal sampling in rape victims: the problem of Locard’s principle. Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 9(2), 154-162.
• 23.   Kennedy, D. (2003). Forensic science: oxymoron?. Science, 302(5651), 1625-1626.
• 24.   Bode, J. (2019, June). Every Contact Leaves a Trace: A Literary Reality of Locard’s Exchange Principle. In Outside the Box: A Multi-Lingual Forum (p. 18).
• 25.   Byard, R.W., James, H., Berketa, J., & Heath, K. (2016). Locard’s principle of exchange, dental examination and fragments of skin. Journal of forensic sciences, 61(2), 545-547.
• 26.   Beauregard, E., & Martineau, M. (2014). No body, no crime? The role of forensic awareness in avoiding police detection in cases of sexual homicide. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(2), 213-220.
• 27.   Chan, K.P.S., & Aitken, C.G.G. (1989). Estimation of the bayes’ factor in a forensic science problem. Journal of statistical computation and simulation, 33(4), 249-264.
• 28.   Bell, S., Sah, S., Albright, T.D., Gates, S.J., Denton, M.B., & Casadevall, A. (2018). A call for more science in forensic science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(18), 4541-4544.
• 29.   Palenik, C.S., &Palenik, S. J. (2004). Forensic science and academic science. Science, 303(5661), 1136-1136.
• 30.   Sharma, B.R. (1989). Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation and Trials. India
• 31.   Moran, B.R. (2007). Shooting incident reconstruction. In Crime Reconstruction (pp. 215-312). Academic Press, Burlington.

Data Sharing Statement

Funding