Centre for Forensic Science, University of Technology, Broadway, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Ecole des Sciences Criminelles, Université de Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland; Service forensique, Police Neuchâteloise, Rue des poudrières 14, 2006 Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Forensic Sci Int. 2014 Mar;236:181-90. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.12.045. Epub 2014 Jan 14.
Forensic intelligence is a distinct dimension of forensic science. Forensic intelligence processes have mostly been developed to address either a specific type of trace or a specific problem. Even though these empirical developments have led to successes, they are trace-specific in nature and contribute to the generation of silos which hamper the establishment of a more general and transversal model. Forensic intelligence has shown some important perspectives but more general developments are required to address persistent challenges. This will ensure the progress of the discipline as well as its widespread implementation in the future. This paper demonstrates that the description of forensic intelligence processes, their architectures, and the methods for building them can, at a certain level, be abstracted from the type of traces considered. A comparative analysis is made between two forensic intelligence approaches developed independently in Australia and in Europe regarding the monitoring of apparently very different kind of problems: illicit drugs and false identity documents. An inductive effort is pursued to identify similarities and to outline a general model. Besides breaking barriers between apparently separate fields of study in forensic science and intelligence, this transversal model would assist in defining forensic intelligence, its role and place in policing, and in identifying its contributions and limitations. The model will facilitate the paradigm shift from the current case-by-case reactive attitude towards a proactive approach by serving as a guideline for the use of forensic case data in an intelligence-led perspective. A follow-up article will specifically address issues related to comparison processes, decision points and organisational issues regarding forensic intelligence (part II).
法庭科学情报是法庭科学的一个独特领域。法庭科学情报处理过程主要是为了解决特定类型的痕迹或特定问题而开发的。尽管这些实证发展取得了成功，但它们本质上是针对特定痕迹的，导致了隔离的产生，阻碍了更一般和横向模型的建立。法庭科学情报已经显示出一些重要的观点，但需要更广泛的发展来解决持续存在的挑战。这将确保该学科的发展以及未来的广泛实施。本文表明，法庭科学情报过程的描述、其架构以及构建它们的方法，可以在一定程度上从所考虑的痕迹类型中抽象出来。针对在澳大利亚和欧洲独立开发的两种法庭科学情报方法，对监测明显非常不同类型的问题（非法药物和虚假身份证件）进行了比较分析。进行了归纳努力，以确定相似之处并概述一个通用模型。除了打破法庭科学和情报领域之间看似独立的壁垒外，这种横向模型还将有助于定义法庭科学情报、其在警务中的作用和地位，并确定其贡献和局限性。该模型将通过充当基于情报的使用法医案件数据的指南，促进从当前针对个别案件的被动态度向主动方法的范式转变。后续文章将专门讨论与法庭科学情报（第二部分）的比较过程、决策点和组织问题相关的问题。
