The black sheep of forensic science: military forensic and technical exploitation

References

• Urban dictionary. California (United States): Urban Dictionary, LLC; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson LE, Gahan ME, Lennard C, Robertson J. A systems approach to forensic science applied in the military domain. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2017;1–10. In press. doi: 10.1080/00450618.2017.1309064.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chief of the General Staff. Army code 71842. operation banner: an analysis of military operations in Northern Ireland. London (United Kingdom): Ministry of Defence; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Herion OR Expeditionary forensic support to joint force Commanders: what changes or considerations are warranted? [dissertation]. Virginia (United States): Department of Defense 2012.
   Google Scholar
• McIntyre R Counter-IED collection and exploitation: a capability in need of a system of systems approach. Counter-IED Report 2016. 2016;Spring/Summer:1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson LE, Gahan ME, Robertson J, Lennard C. Fit for purpose quality management system for military forensic exploitation. Forensic Sci Int. 2018;284:136–140. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.01.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of the Army. The United States Army strategy for expeditionary forensics. Washington (DC): Army Headquarters; May 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Office of the Inspector General. Semiannual report to the congress. Virginia (United States):U. S. Department of Justice; 1 April 2013–30 September 2013
   Google Scholar
• Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2009. Statement before the United State Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson L, Gahan M, Lennard C, Robertson J. A systems approach to biometrics in the military domain. J Forensic Sci. 2018; doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.13758
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muhl GM. Defeating improvised explosive devices (IED): asymmetric threats and capability gaps. Virginia (United States): Department of Defense; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Headquarters Department of the Army. Site exploitation operations. Washington (DC): The Pentagon; July 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Defense. Department of Defense directive, 5205.15E: doD forensic enterprise (DFE). Washington (DC): Department of Defense; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips S. The birth of the combined explosives exploitation cell. Maryland (United States): Small Wars Journal; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• NSWC Indian Head Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division. Celebrating 125 years of service to the warfighter 1890–2015. Maryland (United States): NAVSEA warfare centers; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Joyce J. Navy transfers control of all joint expeditionary forensic labs in Afghanistan to the Army. Georgia (United States): Defense Video Imagery Distribution System; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Defense Forensic Science Center. Georgia (United States): Department of Defense; 2017 [ accessed 2018 Jan 29]. http://www.cid.army.mil/.
   Google Scholar
• Drohan E. CSI Afghanistan: forensic experts help turn bomb maker into convict. Georgia (United States): Defense Video Imagery Distribution System; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Villarreal V. ACME lab helps catch ‘bad guys,’ boasts highest conviction rate in country. Washington (DC): US Army; 30 January 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC). Virginia (United States): FBI; 2017 [ accessed 2017 July 27]. https://www.fbi.gov/services/laboratory/tedac.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Defense. DoD forensic enterprise (DFE). Washington (DC): Department of Defense; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• United States Government Accountability Office. Defense forensic: additional planning and oversight need to establish an enduring expeditionary forensic capability. Washington (DC): Government Accountability Office; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Defense. Defense forensic enterprise strategy. Washington (DC): Department of Defense; March 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Defense. Defense forensic enterprise strategy implementation plan. Washington (DC): Department of Defense; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Defense. Marine Corps forensic enterprise strategy. Virginia (United States): Department of Defence; 20 April 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Department of the Army. Army unified exploitation concept of operations 2012–2018. Kansas (United States): Department of Defense; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• The President of the United States. Countering improvised explosive devices. Washington (DC): The White House; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson L, Gahan M, Lennard C, Robertson J. Why do we need a systems thinking approach to military forensic science in the contemporary world? Aust J Forensic Sci. 2018;1–14. In press. doi: 10.1080/00450618.2018.1515248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Defence. Allied joint doctrine for force protection: 3.14. Brussels (Belgium): NATO Standardization Office (NSO); 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Smith TB, Tranchemontagne M. Understanding the enemy: the enduring value of technical and forensic exploitation. JFQ 75. 2014;4th Quarter(1):122–128.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson LE, Gahan ME, Lennard C, Robertson J. Developing a strategic forensic science risk management system as a component of the forensic science system of systems. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2018;1–14. Published online.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson L, Gahan M, Lennard C, Robertson J. The forensic intelligence continuum in the military context. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2018;1–13. In press.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxford English dictionary. Oxford (United Kingdom): Oxford University Press; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes CA, Chilton J, Clifford JJ, Shelton CC. Defense forensic enterprise assessment and status report. Virginia (United States): Center for Naval Analyses; September 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Standards Australia. AS 5388 forensic analysis part 1: recognition, recording, recovery, transport and storage of material. Sydney (Australia): Australian Standards; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Standards Australia. AS 5388 forensic analysis part 2: analysis and examination of material. Sydney (Australia): Australian Standards; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Standards Australia. AS 5388 forensic analysis part 3: interpretation. Sydney (Australia): Australian Standards; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Standards Australia. AS 5388 forensic analysis part 4: reporting. Sydney (Australia): Australian Standards; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Robertson J, Kent K, Wilson-Wilde L. The development of a core forensic standards framework for Australia. Forensic Sci Policy Manag: Int J. 2013;4(3–4):59–67. doi: 10.1080/19409044.2013.858797.
   Google Scholar
• ISO/TC 272 Forensic sciences. Geneva (Switzerland): International Organization for Standardization (ISO); 2018 [ accessed 2018 October 7]. https://www.iso.org/committee/4395817.html.
   Google Scholar
• The Australian Government Department of Defence. Integrated investment program. Canberra (Australia): The Australian Government Department of Defence; 2016.
   Google Scholar