Complete Schedule
Presentation Type
Open Access Poster Presentation
Abstract
Memory evidence and forensic evidence are both residual traces of an event. While traditional trace evidence (hair, fiber, blood, fingerprints, etc.) is left behind by a perpetrator, memory evidence resides in a person’s mind, usually that of a victim or witness. Both types of evidence have the possibility of contamination; given that memory evidence cannot be bagged and tagged like other types of forensic evidence, it is especially susceptible to contamination which can undercut its ultimate reliability. In court, jurors often have trouble conceptualizing the complexity of memory or even thinking about it as evidence at all. Drawing similarities between memory evidence and trace evidence provides a framework for jurors to make sense of evidence collection procedures as they relate to memory, including the concepts of training of the collectors, policies, procedures, protocols, tools, and analysis. By comparing forensic and memory collection tools, we can begin to understand memory evidence as a form of trace evidence.
Start Date
7-4-2025 10:00 AM
End Date
7-4-2025 10:50 AM
Faculty Advisor
Kimberly MacLin
Department
Department of Psychology
Student Type
Undergraduate Student
Copyright
©2025 Faith Nielsen & M. Kimberly MacLin
File Format
application/pdf
Recommended Citation
Nielsen, Faith and MacLin, M. Kimberly, "Trace Evidence vs Memory Evidence: Comparing Evidence Collection Tools" (2025). INSPIRE Student Research and Engagement Conference. 2.
https://scholarworks.uni.edu/csbsresearchconf/2025/all/2
Trace Evidence vs Memory Evidence: Comparing Evidence Collection Tools
Memory evidence and forensic evidence are both residual traces of an event. While traditional trace evidence (hair, fiber, blood, fingerprints, etc.) is left behind by a perpetrator, memory evidence resides in a person’s mind, usually that of a victim or witness. Both types of evidence have the possibility of contamination; given that memory evidence cannot be bagged and tagged like other types of forensic evidence, it is especially susceptible to contamination which can undercut its ultimate reliability. In court, jurors often have trouble conceptualizing the complexity of memory or even thinking about it as evidence at all. Drawing similarities between memory evidence and trace evidence provides a framework for jurors to make sense of evidence collection procedures as they relate to memory, including the concepts of training of the collectors, policies, procedures, protocols, tools, and analysis. By comparing forensic and memory collection tools, we can begin to understand memory evidence as a form of trace evidence.
Comments
This entry was a part of the following session: