Forensic Expectations and the CSI Effect (DIIS Talking Points 4)
Copenhagen, 17 September 2024
This research note on forensic expectations and aesthetics is the fourth in a series on evidence controls and digital technologies. The series develops points raised at the Danish Institute for International Studies, and research now part of a larger project on information and communications technology.
The increasing forensification of conflict research highlights a growing assumption that forensic standards should be applied to battlefield information, and that evidence collected to the requirements of any particular research discipline will likely be put to use in a court setting and thus require a forensic standard of treatment. There are multiple developments that point to the notion that forensic expectations and methodologies have proliferated beyond the confines of criminalistics and the court.
Some initial points:
Battlefield information as evidence. The concept of "battlefield evidence" promoted by Eurojust creates common ground between forward looking intelligence gathering and retrospective legal investigations, blurs the evidentiary standards of differing research disciplines, and brings to mind cognate developments and long-term changes over time in data science, information management, and intelligence practice.
Emergence of forensic expectations. This is the “CSI effect”. Three factors come into play: the proliferation of electronic sensors, the proliferation of potential items of proof that digital technologies generate; and the popularization of criminal forensics as props of film and television. The suggestion here is that there is a corresponding assumption that all information specialists – journalists, academics, civil society actors, and others - operate under a higher burden of proof, thus mirroring traditional forensic investigators.
Proliferation of forensic protocols: Independent investigative entities such as Forensic Architecture, Bellingcat, and the Commission for International Justice and Accountability, and projects like the Berkeley Protocol on open source gathering for human rights investigations, have formalized standards for using open-source investigations as forensic evidence.
Risk of researcher jeopardy. The democratization of forensic standards creates pressure on investigators, regardless of the primary purpose for which they conduct research, to adhere to rigorously legal evidentiary standards, especially given the international human rights and international humanitarian law dimensions of modern warfare. This creates potential moral, physical, and professional jeopardy for researchers not otherwise empowered to undertake legally mandated investigations or protected by official sanction in the conduct of such activities.
--
Author Bio: Dr. Michael A. Innes is a Visiting Senior Research Fellow in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, where he founded and directs the Conflict Records Unit. He maintains an active consultancy portfolio as managing director and lead consultant at Craighead Kellas SAAR.
Acknowledgments: Thanks to Dr. Matthew Ford at the Swedish Defence University, Dr. Jethro Norman at the Danish Institute for International Studies, and Professor Myrjam de Brujn at Leiden University. Their publications and arguments on Ukraine, Mali, and digital technology impacts directly inform corresponding elements of this research note.
Author Declaration: This research note summarises unfunded research conducted independently by the author. A variety of tools including generative AI were used to track references, collate notes, summarise findings, and suggest an overall report structure. The author manually drafted this research note in its entirety.