What role do identification technologies in criminal justice play in zooming on individual suspects? And how do advances in familial DNA searching contribute to such identifications?
In a forthcoming publication (co-authored with A. M’charek) Un/Doing Race: On Technology, Individuals, and Collectives in Forensic Practice, we unpack this question, drawing specifically on the recently adjudicated and high-profile Milica van Doorn case. This case is only the second Dutch case in which familial DNA searching was used (the first case was the highly incendiary Marianne Vaatstra case, see for more here).
We show how different investigatory techniques and technologies, particularly so the witness report pointing to a ‘singing Turkish man on a bicycle’, DNA biogeographic ancestry searching, and familial DNA searching, introduces different, and not necessarily commensurable suspect collectives:
Defining and delineating collectives involves various kinds of knowledges and technologies (criminological, cultural, forensic), takes multiple technologies (of writing, of memory, of seeing bodies, of isolating DNA and analysing it in relation to existing, every-evolving databases), and takes a lot of work.
Emphasizing the performativity of investigatory and forensic technologies, our contribution draws specifically on science and technology studies and the anthropology of technology. In that capacity, it also resonates strongly with my performative approach to legal case files, which – much like the technologies discussed here – actively shape and delineate the world in (legal) question.
From: Van Oorschot and A. M’charek. (2021) “Un/Doing Race: On Technology, Individuals and Collectives in Forensic Practice.” In The Handbook for the Anthropology of Technology, eds. M. Hojer Bruun and C Hasse, Palgrave. Pre-print can be found here.