FORENSIC ARCHITECTURE
Eyal Weizman gives lecture at Mcgill on Forensic Architecture
On Thursday September 14, The Mcgill Architecture School kicked off its annual lecture series with a talk by Eyal Weizman, Professor of Spatial and Visual Cultures at Goldsmiths, University of London and Director of the Centre for Research Architecture. Most significantly, Weizman has been directing Forensic Architecture, a project funded by the European Research Council, since 2011.
Weizman initiated Forensic Architecture and has been able to employ it as a function of humanitarian and social justice. His lecture focused on the use of architecture as a powerful method in forensic science. Titled, “Democracy, Space and Technology”, it was an unprecedented study of “architecture as a sensor.” Through the representation of Forensic Architecture projects over the past few years, Weizman posed questions about the multiple layers of witness testimony, the threat of the ‘fake news’ phenomenon, and the difficulties of navigating the political realm of architecture.
He first explained that Forensic Science functions as an investigative unit that uses architectural principles and modeling to research crime scenes on a global scale. The cases under investigation are usually inaccessible due to political, geographical or even systematic reasons. Yet, by studying the space as a function of people’s interaction with it, Weizman and his team are able to reconstruct the scene in a way that allows further information to be collected and analyzed. This is done through the use of computer programs that facilitate the analysis of digital data, large-scale modeling that recreates the intended scene, and the collection of metadata evidence (data concerning the time and place).
Weizman demonstrated the use of this process in warfare architecture. He presented the case of drone strikes in Waziristan, a region in Pakistan under strict military control. After providing a visual survey of the region’s topography, Weizman showed how ineffective the use of satellite images is in surveying an area affected by drone strikes. As a result, before and after images of a strike yield no evidence of the attack.
In Waziristan, there is little to no media access. Therefore, almost no evidence exists of covert drone strikes conducted by the US military. Weizman’s team uses spatial mapping of the terrain and the analysis of the building rubble in order to reconstruct the scene and piece together the details of the strike. In this way, the affected buildings and structures are treated as an archeological site that can relay the conditions surrounding an event. In a particular case in Waziristan, footage was found that helped frame the drone strike site, and thus provided information regarding the type of drone, the mechanism by which it detonates, and even the time at which it would have gone off.
This chain of collected evidence is further demonstrated by the case of the Israeli bombings on Gaza in the Summer of 2014. After being approached by Amnesty International and Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) to help build a case for The Hague, the Forensic Architecture team was able to collect data through analysis of bomb smoke footage.
Weizman pointed out the difficulty of using the images and videos available from social media as material for court since they do not have the metadata needed for such a high profile case. Additionally, he emphasized that the evidence collected from those sources would be incomplete due to the intermittent electricity shutdowns conducted by Israeli Authorities on the Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, the researchers were asked to determine the deadliest day of the strike, in order to present the data in court. By analyzing these images, which initially offered little data, the team constructed a temporal frame based on the rate of bomb cloud spread and managed to find the exact missile used in the strike.
Weizman also works with trauma survivors on sensory recognition to help them recall valuable parts of their testimony. Trauma often causes a distortion of memories of the traumatic event. Because of this, data relayed by survivors can be difficult to contextualize temporally and spatially.
In one incident, Syrian political prisoners who escaped imprisonment aimed to testify against the war crimes conducted by the regime. Their knowledge of the secure prison space was distorted, as they had been blindfolded for most of the time. However, after reconstructing the architecture through visual, kinetic and audio modeling, the prisoners were able to recall suppressed details of their experience. While this had a significant impact on the investigation, a more important outcome was the technique’s ability to move the prisoners towards psychological treatment. Weizman stressed, “Space collects its cartesian reality, as well as its psychological depth.”
The response to Forensic Architecture’s work has varied, but there has been a common thread of attacks from authorities under investigation. Weizman referenced articles and interviews that were quick to dismiss the work as invalid. He gave the example of current Syrian President Assad, who stated that such an investigation was based on fabricated evidence. Weizman also mentioned the Israeli Authorities’ reaction to the Gaza investigation, which they dismissed as false as well. After referencing these cases, Weizman asked, “What does it mean to fabricate evidence?” He explored the role of politics in determining the validity of information, and how power plays a major role in investigations conducted on a global scale. He emphasized the importance of Forensic Architecture in spite of this, as it is a way of “seizing the means of production; the means of investigation and therefore producing evidence.”
Weizman concluded with a statement on the complexity of navigating political conflict through this field of work. After being questioned on the Israeli-palestinian conflict, he stated that while such investigations would usually engage with the Israeli authorities, his work attempts to minimize complicity in the attacks conducted by the Occupation forces. Weizman explained that such work would not address the Israeli government, as that in itself “would be reaffirming that it had any control over Palestinian lives”.
He urged everyone to consider the fact that Forensic Architecture is and will continue to be under attack, especially by concerned Authorities. Finally, he stated, “In a sense, the truth is under threat.” The only ethical question that remains is how to find it.
Almost no evidence exists of covert drone strikes conducted by the US military.
In this way, the affected buildings are treated as an archeological site that can relay the conditions of an event.
“What does it mean to fabricate evidence?”