Forensic files is a book series. It includes 18 books, written by 7 different authors.

This test image is a NTFS file system and is intended to test data carving tools and their ability to extract various file formats. The image contains several allocated and deleted files that are all stored mixed contiguous and fragmented formats within its allocated space. The reson for fragmented files as a part of the database is that the file retrival capabaility of the tools in such cases also need to be tested and published. All files are random files that that were in my possession or that I created from scratch. This image was created from a NAND USB thumb-drive that was wiped and formatted using the Forensic Toolkit FTK Imager with the file extension of AD1. The image has been eliminated with its meta data so that it cannot be mounted and therefore data carving methods must be used to extract the files. This test image is a 'raw' image (i.e. 'dd') of a NTFS file system. The file system is 2 GB. The MD5, SHA, file types, name of every file and all other details of the image are clearly mentioned in the .csv and .txt files attached to this data set. One can run the image against any data carving based tool and thus can cross check the obtained values with that of our image.

The NIST DART-MS Forensics Database is an evaluated collection of in-source collisionally-induced dissociation (is-CID) mass spectra of compounds of interest to the forensics community (e.g. seized drugs, cutting agents, etc.). The is-CID mass spectra were collected using Direct Analysis in Real-Time (DART) Mass Spectrometry (MS), either by NIST scientists or by contributing agencies noted per compound. The database is provided as a general-purpose structure data file (.SDF). For users on Windows operating systems, the .SDF format library can be converted to NIST MS Search format using Lib2NIST and then explored using NIST MS Search v2.4 for general mass spectral analysis. These software tools can be downloaded at https://chemdata.nist.gov. The database is now (09-28-2021) also provided in R data format (.RDS) for use with the R programming language. This database, also commonly referred to as a library, is one in a series of high-quality mass spectral libraries/databases produced by NIST (see NIST SRD 1a, https://dx.doi.org/10.18434/T4H594).

This project was undertaken to establish a computerized skeletal database composed of recent forensic cases to represent the present ethnic diversity and demographic structure of the United States population. The intent was to accumulate a forensic skeletal sample large and diverse enough to reflect different socioeconomic groups of the general population from different geographical regions of the country in order to enable researchers to revise the standards being used for forensic skeletal identification. The database is composed of eight data files, comprising four categories. The primary "biographical" or "identification" files (Part 1, Demographic Data, and Part 2, Geographic and Death Data) comprise the first category of information and pertain to the positive identification of each of the 1,514 data records in the database. Information in Part 1 includes sex, ethnic group affiliation, birth date, age at death, height (living and cadaver), and weight (living and cadaver). Variables in Part 2 pertain to the nature of the remains, means and sources of identification, city and state/country born, occupation, date missing/last seen, date of discovery, date of death, time since death, cause of death, manner of death, deposit/exposure of body, area found, city, county, and state/country found, handedness, and blood type. The Medical History File (Part 3) represents the second category of information and contains data on the documented medical history of the individual. Variables in Part 3 include general comments on medical history as well as comments on congenital malformations, dental notes, bone lesions, perimortem trauma, and other comments. The third category consists of an inventory file (Part 4, Skeletal Inventory Data) in which data pertaining to the specific contents of the database are maintained. This includes the inventory of skeletal material by element and side (left and right), indicating the condition of the bone as either partial or complete. The variables in Part 4 provide a skeletal inventory of the cranium, mandible, dentition, and postcranium elements and identify the element as complete, fragmentary, or absent. If absent, four categories record why it is missing. The last part of the database is composed of three skeletal data files, covering quantitative observations of age-related changes in the skeleton (Part 5), cranial measurements (Part 6), and postcranial measurements (Part 7). Variables in Part 5 provide assessments of epiphyseal closure and cranial suture closure (left and right), rib end changes (left and right), Todd Pubic Symphysis, Suchey-Brooks Pubic Symphysis, McKern & Steward--Phases I, II, and III, Gilbert & McKern--Phases I, II, and III, auricular surface, and dorsal pubic pitting (all for left and right). Variables in Part 6 include cranial measurements (length, breadth, height) and mandibular measurements (height, thickness, diameter, breadth, length, and angle) of various skeletal elements. Part 7 provides postcranial measurements (length, diameter, breadth, circumference, and left and right, where appropriate) of the clavicle, scapula, humerus, radius, ulna, scarum, innominate, femur, tibia, fibula, and calcaneus. A small file of noted problems for a few cases is also included (Part 8).

The purpose of the study was to investigate the role and impact of forensic science evidence on the criminal justice process. The study utilized a prospective analysis of official record data that followed criminal cases in five jurisdictions (Los Angeles County, California; Indianapolis, Indiana; Evansville, Indiana; Fort Wayne, Indiana; and South Bend, Indiana) from the time of police incident report to final criminal disposition. The data were based on a random sample of the population of reported crime incidents between 2003 and 2006, stratified by crime type and jurisdiction. A total of 4,205 cases were sampled including 859 aggravated assaults, 1,263 burglaries, 400 homicides, 602 rapes, and 1,081 robberies. Descriptive and impact data were collected from three sources: police incident and investigation reports, crime lab reports, and prosecutor case files. The data contain a total of 175 variables including site, crime type, forensic variables, criminal offense variables, and crime dispositions variables.

This dataset consists of single source and mixture samples which were genotyped/sequenced with kits targeting Forensic DNA markers. More information specific to the kit and or method used can be found in the README text files included in each zipped file. The CE-STR kits reported for the single source samples include: Applied Biosystems GlobalFiler, Applied Biosystems Y-Filer Plus, Promega PowerPlex Fusion 6C, Promega PowerPlex Y23 The CE profiles for single source samples are also included in a spreadsheet. The following CE-STR kit is reported for the mixture samples: Promega PowerPlex Fusion 6C The sequencing kits reported for the mixture and single source samples include: Verogen ForenSeq DNA Signature Prep Kit, Promega PowerSeq 46GY, Thermo Fisher Applied Biosystems Precision ID GlobalFiler NGS STR Panel v2 The single source samples only are reported for: Promega PowerSeq CRM Nested System This data was produced with approval from the NIST Research Protections Office. It is intended for research, training, and educational purposes only and could potentially contain errors due to limited review prior to uploading. This data should not be used to identify the donor of the profile or uploaded/searched versus public or law enforcement DNA databases. Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this dataset in order to specify the experimental procedure adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by NIST, nor is it intended to imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. The objective of this study was to determine how homicide investigators use evidence during the course of their investigations. Data on 294 homicide cases (315 victims) that occurred in Cleveland between 2008 and 2011 was collected from investigative reports, forensic analysis reports, prosecutors and homicide investigators, provided by the Cleveland Ohio Police Department, Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner's Office, and Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts. The study collection includes 1 Stata data file (NIJ_Cleveland_Homicides.dta, n=294, 109 variables).

This data collection focuses on adult cases of serious crime such as homicide (and related death investigations), rape, robbery, aggravated assault/battery, burglary, and arson. Data are included for Peoria, Illinois, Chicago, Illinois, Kansas City, Missouri, and Oakland, California. The data consist of police, court, and laboratory records from reports submitted by police personnel during investigations of suspected criminal offenses. The primary source of information was police case files. Prosecutor and court files were reviewed for information regarding the disposition of suspects who were arrested and formally charged. Crime laboratory reports include information concerning the evidence submitted and the examiner's worksheets, notes, and final results. There are eight files in this dataset. Each of the four cities has one file for cases with physical evidence and one file for cases in which physical evidence was not collected or examined.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.This collection includes data gathered through three separate study designs. The first study called for tracking cases and forensic evidence through local criminal justice processes for five offenses: homicide, sexual assault, aggravated assault, robbery and burglary. Two sites, Denver, Colorado, and San Diego, California, participated in the study. Demographic data were collected on victims (Victim Data n = 7,583) and defendants (Defendant Data n = 2,318). Data on forensic evidence collected at crime scenes included DNA material (DNA Evidence Data n = 1,894), firearms evidence (Ballistics Evidence Data n = 488), latent prints (Latent Print Evidence Data n = 766), trace evidence (Other Impressions Evidence Data n = 49), and drug evidence (Drug Evidence Data n = 43). Comparisons were then made between open and closed cases from the participating sites. Two smaller studies were conducted as part of this grant. The second study was an analysis of an experiment in the Miami-Date, Florida Police Department (Miami-Data County Data n = 1,421) to determine whether clearance rates for no-suspect property crimes could be improved through faster processing of DNA evidence. The third study was a survey of 75 police departments across the nation (Crime Labs Survey Data) to obtain information on the organizational placement, staffing and responsibilities of crime lab units.

This research seeks to collect all publicly available information concerning cases that were successfully cleared through forensic investigative genetic genealogy (FIGG), going back as far as possible in time and ending on December 31, 2023.

Cases were selected for inclusion in the dataset through internet searches, discussion boards related to genetic genealogy, missing persons, and cold cases, as well as press releases and blog posts from private companies and non-profit organizations known to perform FIGG, publications devoted to advances in forensic science, and published court records.

Cases were chosen for inclusion in the sample only if a public authority had confirmed that FIGG was used to clear the investigation, and the investigation met the following definition of FIGG:

1. Investigative Body: The investigation was led by a public, and not a private, authority, such as a law enforcement agency or a coroner/medical examiner’s office.

2. Investigative Techniques: The investigation must use the techniques of genomics, computer database technologies, and traditional genealogy. Cases were included when family lineages were drawn out to at least three or more generations. The sample includes investigations that use Y-chromosome STR profiles and/or mitochondrial DNA profiles to trace the paternal and maternal lineages of persons of interest. Cases solved through familial searching of law enforcement databases were excluded from the sample, as this technique raises separate legal and ethical issues.

3. Investigative Purpose: The investigation must be for a forensic purpose, meaning that the evidence thus produced is relevant to an ongoing legal dispute. Most cases considered here are for the identification of perpetrators of criminal offences or the identification of decedents but can also include the identification of living does. Not included in this data are cases that are of purely historical interest, or the identification of unknown soldiers by military authorities. The term ‘forensic genetic genealogy’ has been chosen for this project in preference to the broader, and more generic term ‘investigative genetic genealogy’, which has also been used, to highlight the fact that these investigations are directed towards an ongoing legal dispute before the public legal system.

4. Causation: This database only includes cases that have been successfully cleared using FIGG. The resolution of any investigation – particularly very large and lengthy investigations as were many of the cases described in this data – has many causes. To be included here, the FIGG investigation must have played a significant causal role in the resolution of the case.

More complete information about how the data was coded, as well as an annotated bibliography and a short digest of each case, can be found in the Code Book below. You may read a short digest of each case cleared, including references for all data collected, in the Case Digests.

This dataset contains code for implementing our proposed Forensic File classification system with the help of Guided LDA algorithm and SDOT forensic Framework. Along with the code, we have provided auxiillary files that are used in this research.

Collection of data used in the article. The names of packed files refer to the corresponding tables and pictures.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. This research was conducted in two phases. Phase one analyzed a random sample of approximately 2,000 case files from 2006 through 2009 that contain forensic analyses from the Connecticut State Forensic Science Laboratory, along with corresponding police and court case file data. As with Peterson, et al. (2010), this research had four objectives: 1) estimate the percentage of cases in which crime scene evidence is collected; 2) discover what kinds of forensic are being collected; 3)track such evidence through the criminal justice system; and 4)identify which forms of forensic evidence are most efficacious given the crime investigated. Phase two consisted of a survey administered to detectives within the State of Connecticut regarding their comparative assessments of the utility of forensic evidence. These surveys further advance our understanding of how the success of forensic evidence in achieving arrests and convictions matches with detective opinion.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. This project explored the use and impact of injury evidence and biological evidence through a study of the role of these forms of evidence in prosecuting sexual assault in an urban district attorney's office in a metropolitan area in the eastern United States. The research questions addressed in this summary overview were as follows: How frequent were different forms of injury evidence and biological evidence in the sample? Is the presence of injury evidence and biological evidence correlated with the presence of other forms of evidence?Which types of cases and case circumstances are more likely to yield injury evidence and biological evidence? Do the presence of injury evidence and biological evidence predict criminal justice outcomes, taking into account the effects of other predictors? In what ways do prosecutors use injury evidence and biological evidence and what is their appraisal of their impact on case outcomes? The collection contains 1 SPSS data file, DataArchiveFile_InjuryEvidenceForensicEvidenceandthe ProsecutionofSexualAssault4-7-17.sav (n=257; 417 variables).The qualitative data files were excluded from deposit with ICPSR and are not available as part of this data collection at this time.

This data set contains raw GC-MS data files of neat ignitable liquids, substrates, and simulated fire debris samples. All samples were analyzed by conventional GC-MS and rapid GC-MS, a fast chromatographic screening technique. The raw data files contain chromatographic data (counts vs. retention time) for all samples analyzed. Gasoline and diesel fuel were chosen as ignitable liquids. Substrates (both unburned and burned without ignitable liquids) included carpet, wood, and primed wood. The simulated fire debris samples were generated by pouring aliquots of each ignitable liquid onto each substrate and subsequently igniting. The debris samples were prepared by passive-headspace extraction and analyzed by rapid GC-MS and traditional GC-MS. Major compounds in both gasoline and diesel fuel were identified following analysis by both techniques. Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this dataset in order to specify the experimental procedure adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

This data file describes three different experiments that were designed to examine how differences in the way forensic scientific evidence is communicated affects jurors. In each experiment, participants consisted of jury-eligible community members in Maricopa County, Arizona. Groups of participants attended a research session in which they were shown a 35-40-minute videotapes of one of two mock criminal trials (one, a rape case, centers around bitemark evidence, and the other, an attempted murder, centers around fingerprint evidence). Within each trial the content of a forensic scientist's testimony was manipulated. These manipulations involved: 1) whether the technique used by the forensic scientist was "high tech" or "low tech," 2) the amount of experience possessed by the forensic scientist, 3) whether the technique used by the forensic scientist had been scientifically validated, 4) whether the forensic scientist conceded that an error was possible, and 5) whether any exculpatory evidence was present at the crime scene. Immediately following the trial, each individual participants completed a questionnaire in which they gave their individual impressions of the strength of the case. Following that, the group of participant would deliberate and attempt to reach a unanimous verdict. Finally, each individual participant completed an additional questionnaire that again measured perceptions of the case along with individual difference measures and demographics.

Images of shoe prints from 160 pairs of shoes (“Nike Winflo 4” or “Adidas Seeley”; 4 sizes each) made using a 2D digital scanner (EverOS EverSpry) with associated measurements and data about shoe wear, surfaces, and wearers.Each pair of shoes was worn for at least 10,000 steps per week over a 6-month period, with multiple measurements of the shoe soles taken initially and during three check-in periods spaced at approximately 5 week intervals.The images are accompanied by 3 CSV files describing the shoes, visit (information collected from surveys along with the shoes), and individual images. The codebooks contain descriptions of the variables in each of the CSV files as well as a more extensive description of the file naming scheme outlined in the README.These files can be used to examine wear pattern development, to look for the presence of identifying characteristics among shoes with similar features, and to develop algorithms for matching shoes based on individualizing characteristics.

A *.zip file containing four files for Worked example 17.1 from the book Deciphering Earth’s History: the Practice of Stratigraphy, which demonstrate the application of sequence slotting with palaeontological data using the CPLSlot freeware. There are two input data text files (ending in extension *.txt) of the palynological data for the two successions to be correlated, a third file (extension *.sld), which can only be read by CPLSlot, that stores information about correlation and slotting models set up when using the software, while the fourth file, an Excel file (extension *.xlsx), contains the complete workings for Worked example 17.1, and the last processing step of finalizing a correlation model not show in the worked example in the book.

Data used for the study: "Self-regulation all Bass-Ackwards: Similarities and differences in component structure in general and forensic psychiatric populations." The data is connected to this Open Science Framework registration: osf.io/mc4vz
Includes also the R file used to do the analyses.
Demographic data for forensic patients were removed from the dataset in order to maintain anonymity.

TEL is the Threatening English Language corpus. It is a collection of 309 written texts compiled from the publicly-available portion of CTARC (the Communicated Threat Assessment Research Corpus, compiled by Tammy Gales), MFT (the Malicious Forensic Texts corpus, compiled by Andrea Nini), and the written portion of CoJO (the Corpus of Judicial Opinions, compiled by Julia Muschalik). Additional texts are from ForensicLing.com (the forensic linguistic data site hosted by Tammy Gales and Dakota Wing). Basic metadata is supplied for each text where known from the original case research. We wish to thank our graduate student fellows who helped compile the texts and metadata: Nicole Harris, Annina van Riper, Zara Rabinko, and Zachary Boudreaux.

Total texts: 309 Total estimated authors: 203 Total word count: 54,167

METADATA KEY

TG = Tammy Gales (public portion of CTARC) AN = Andrea Nini (MFT) JM = Julia Muschalik (written portion of CoJo) FL = ForensicLing.com (Tammy Gales and Dakota Wing)

Name###_## = file name, case number, text number within case File name might be threat recipient or author; remaining info is about the author, where known