I've read posts where people (students) intern at police departments, image things and help out.
100-1 money says that none of the cases where students worked on a case imaging or anything of relevance had an expert on the other side. If you take a second and step back I'm sure you can see how if you were on the other side with 20 years experience and hired by Acme to win a case based on CF evidence, you would go after imaging, experience of the other examiner, etc.
We were the first police force in the UK (AFAIK) to introduce a student placement into the unit. We had two students for a year each and they did all the imaging during that period in addition to other tasks. They were both experienced in IT, had two years computer forensics degree course behind them, and were trained in house by us to follow our imaging procedures. I doubt if you would get anywhere trying to challenge any of the work carried out by them as it was all done in accordance with ACPO guidelines.
H
Well said Harry. Everyone started somewhere, and for the simple stuff like imaging, a good set of procedures, some proper training with an initial assessment of competency, an appropriate level of supervision and some proper risk management would cover it.
It's the analysis and rendering of opinions where the risk of shooting oneself in the foot becomes likely if one lacks experience and doesn't have the benefit of a good peer review process.
You really need to do some defense work to understand where an intern could cost someone their freedom, or a company a large law suit, regardless of a "good set of procedures"
And BTW who in the world wants to go through providing a babysitting service
Procedures
Proper Training
Initial assessment of competency
Level of supervision
Risk management
Maybe you have the time to be able to do that, but I'm a bit to busy to be able to go through all that with each intern.
Well said Harry. Everyone started somewhere, and for the simple stuff like imaging, a good set of procedures, some proper training with an initial assessment of competency, an appropriate level of supervision and some proper risk management would cover it.
It's the analysis and rendering of opinions where the risk of shooting oneself in the foot becomes likely if one lacks experience and doesn't have the benefit of a good peer review process.
The point of my article was that the training takes time - however, if Harry's department are willing to provide the necessary time to assist the students, then that's super as it will give a student a great opportunity.
If the correct procedures are implemented for the tasks the student will carry out (including imaging), particularly incorporating a competency assessment, how it is would be any different than letting any new staff member loose on evidence? If a person has been appropriately trained and signed off as being competent over time, then the work they produce will either be verified and checked by a senior scientist (prior to their assessment) or produced by someone whom has been deemed competent to do so. This is exactly the same as it should be for any new staff member - student or not.
Like anything, it could be mentioned in court but ultimately, it’s for the court to decide if something can be tendered in evidence. If the appropriate paperwork, training folders, assessments etc. are in place then I would say it would be the same as any new starter in the field (and every examiner/expert did their first job sometime!)
Kind regards
Sam Raincock
You really need to do some defense work to understand where an intern could cost someone their freedom, or a company a large law suit, regardless of a "good set of procedures"
Why on earth do you consider I need to do some defence work to understand the risks. Do you think a defence "expert" has some special powers of reasoning that is beyond that of people who prosecute?
We have to consider the defence aspects in all cases we deal with, that's why in the last 11 years my unit has only been to court on literally a handful of occasions and we have never yet had a technical challenge to our evidence.
The productivity gained from a hard working student placement can easily outweigh the time involved in training and in the long run benefits the community as a whole.
Just to clarify, the student placements in the UK are generally for more or less a whole year and are taken as the third year of a four year BSc.
Before I get inundated with requests I suppose I better add that we don't have funding for a placement any more, sorry.
H
Actually Harry, based on the quote, I think he was digging at me. But then again, I have done defense work so once again, he's assuming facts not in evidence.
As for who would go through the effort of "babysitting" I'd say pretty much every agency with more than one examiner on their payroll has gone through "babysitting" new examiners. Therefore simply on the basis of that need, they should have developed procedures which could be easily adapted to interns since they encompass basically the same set of issues. Obviously the cost of such things is an issue, which is I think the point of Sam's article, and is likely a major factor in why so few agencies offer internships based on the cost more so than the logistics.
It would seem to me though that a sufficiently large lab could offset the cost of training, competency testing and supervision against the amount of imaging work that could be done by that intern over the course of 3-6 months.
I recall this discussion happening at one agency where a major negative factor was that they didn't have the budget / FTE positions available to employ the good ones at the end of the process, which then reduced the perceived benefit to the agency.
From your own site
"When you are dealing with some firms, your work may be done by an associate with limited experience. Ensure you check the experience of your examiner, and not just their company. You may be dealing with someone who performs forensics "on the side" and may only have worked a few dozen cases"
So, I should question who does the work, ask why an intern just worked on my case which is a case sending me to prison for 50 years, and how much experience that intern has? Maybe that intern hasn't even worked on the few dozen cases you mention on your site.
You wrote out that long explanation when you could have just said, yes it does cost more to babysit people. The main difference between babysitting interns and bringing new hires up to speed, is that the new hires have the qualifications you are looking for, the intern is looking for work experience. A new hire just needs the SOP's for that shop, an intern needs to not only know that, but have you verify everything they do.
Actually Harry, based on the quote, I think he was digging at me. But then again, I have done defense work so once again, he's assuming facts not in evidence.
As for who would go through the effort of "babysitting" I'd say pretty much every agency with more than one examiner on their payroll has gone through "babysitting" new examiners. Therefore simply on the basis of that need, they should have developed procedures which could be easily adapted to interns since they encompass basically the same set of issues. Obviously the cost of such things is an issue, which is I think the point of Sam's article, and is likely a major factor in why so few agencies offer internships based on the cost more so than the logistics.
It would seem to me though that a sufficiently large lab could offset the cost of training, competency testing and supervision against the amount of imaging work that could be done by that intern over the course of 3-6 months.
I recall this discussion happening at one agency where a major negative factor was that they didn't have the budget / FTE positions available to employ the good ones at the end of the process, which then reduced the perceived benefit to the agency.