Talk:Locard's exchange principle
|WikiProject Law Enforcement||(Rated Stub-class)|
The quotation that you credit to Edmond Locard is actually from Prof. Paul Kirk's textbook Crime Investigation, 1950, and was not made by Locard at all. Respectfully submitted Inv. Dan Román, MA. Forensic Services Unit, Madison Police, Madison WI I have recommended that this be merged with Locard's principle. As there is a more specific title in 'Locard's exchange principle', as well as a greater quality of presentation, I believe that this should be the page to be merged to. However, as I am no expert on this matter, I am leaving the default merge template.
-- Sasuke Sarutobi 21:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Spelling of name
I have seen the name Locard spelt Lockart as well as Loquard with both expousing the exchange princple. Does anyone know the history of the surname?
The Westerfield-van Dam case was deleted with the explanation: “this doesn't clarify anything, it's just cut and paste from an interesting case with unclear forensics”. I restored it with the explanation: “reverted good faith removal of content; the facts given show how the forensics could have been made clearer”.
I want to make some additional comments. I’d have thought that Wikipedia articles generally consisted of “cut and paste” from a variety of sources, so the deleted/restored material is no different. Also, I disagree that the forensics are unclear: I think they point to innocence. But if the criminalists had performed the extra examinations described, then that might have changed the balance.
Speaking in general terms, this type of evidence is used in serious crimes, including murder, and can be crucial in determining guilt or innocence. In jurisdictions having the death penalty, this evidence can decide between life and death. So the Wikipedia article should be longer and more comprehensive, rather than shorter.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Correction of incorrect correction
The statement “Danielle had a haircut shortly before the cookie sale, so any frayed hairs (split ends) were likely from a prior time, but this was not revealed” was changed to “Danielle had a haircut a few days before the cookie sale, leaving all her hair the same length, 8 inches; the hairs found in the motor home were 8 inches long” with the explanation “correction, this is what the source actually says”.
Correction: “this” is what the remaining source says; the deleted information is from the deleted reference. Which is correct? Commonsense alone tells us that the hairs on our heads are not all the same length. But we don’t need to rely solely on commonsense. The criminalist testified during the trial that the hairs pulled from Danielle’s head ranged in length from 3 centimeters (1.18 inches) to 21.5 centimeters (8.46 inches), while one evidentiary hair was 22 centimeters (8.66 inches). Fortunately, the trial testimony is still available, so you can find confirmation here: http://legacy.utsandiego.com/news/metro/danielle/transcripts/20020624-9999-am2.htmlTheTruth-2009 (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'll delete that sentence. The "8 inches" was from an informal comment by one of the prosecutors, so maybe not the most reliable source in the world. (However I will note that "8.46 inches" is pretty much the same as "8.66 inches" which is pretty much the same as "8 inches".) I still feel that the entire Danielle van Dam section is way, way TMI for an article that is supposed to be about Locard's exchange principle, but I am leaving it because there is another case here treated in similar detail. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)