Talk:Locard's exchange principle

Merge recommendation[edit]

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)[reply]

Misattributed quotation[edit]

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.147.0.142 (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of name[edit]

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.190 (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Famous cases[edit]

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)[reply]

Correction of incorrect correction[edit]

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.html TheTruth-2009 (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for that. The article has been watered down and doesn’t reveal the full power of trace evidence.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template overuse and content over-deletion?[edit]

A few days ago, V2Blast added many tags, mainly “citation needed”, to the Weimar Children Murders and Popular Culture sections.

Weimar: the sources are referenced earlier in that section. Is it really necessary to repeatedly give them?

Popular Culture: these entries already had wikilinks and/or references (though maybe not the best). However, they have all since been removed by another editor, which seems too drastic a remedy to me.

Just days earlier, V2Blast was criticized for “Template overuse”, and it seems to me that this is an example.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Locard's exchange principle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Westerfield-van Dam case hair samples[edit]

This part appears to be rather confused. The section states that "14 hairs consistent with Danielle's were found in his environment", but later states that "Most (21) of the hairs were in a dryer lint ball". One or other number must be wrong. European Prehistorian (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 21 includes dog hairs. The confusion was caused by the removal of the preceding sentence on 9 August 2014.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Utter Gobbledegook[edit]

Without some explanation of how the evidence was used and interpreted this article is just bunkum that serves no purpose. Requires a major cleanup. Stub Mandrel (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Seminars in Forensic Science[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 6 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hockeyetc08 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Hockeyetc08 (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]