process, today the same analysis may cost as little as $40, utilize human material invisible to the naked eye and be completed in days (Quindlen 80). Indeed, today DNA can be extracted not only from tiny bits of blood, but also from traces of sweat, tears and saliva. As Barry Fischer, director of the Los Angeles sheriff departmentÆs forensics lab reported to Time in late 2002: ôYou can get good DNA from a hatband or the nosepiece of a pair of glassesö (Kluger 37).
A recent surprise in gene technology revealed that DNA can even be found in cells that are non-nuclear. For years, cells in, for example, fingernails or hair were not eligible for testing because they were comprised of non-nucleated cells. Today, mitochondrial-DNA sequencing allows such evidence to come under the forensic microscope; it is now possible to use the new technology to test DNA found in something as seemingly inorganic as a chip of tooth (Kluger 37).
Other forensic developments have also taken evidence-gathering into the high-tech stratosphere. Testing for gunpowder on suspectsÆ hands, for example, can now be done using scanning electron microscopes. The elements of gunpowder give off distinguishable traces under electron beams that act as powder ôsignaturesö for investigators. Machines such as the ôgas chromatographyö and ômass spectrometryö apparatuses test bits of evidence whose chemical composition is unknown, ultimately revealing what a piece of evidence is made of. Infrared has also been used to analyze the oils found in fingerprints, which would identify not only who a suspect is, but also what their physical chemistry happens to be (Kluger 38).
The most pervasive technology, however, remains DNA testing. Other evidentiary techniques such as those mentioned above are exorbitantly costly, usually damage or destroy the evidence that
...