Category Archives: Crime Scene Reconstruction

Bloodstain Patterns on Textile Surfaces: A Fundamental Analysis

Bloodstains on fabric

Bloodstains on fabric

Article authored by: Stephen Michielsen, Michael Taylor, Namrata Parekh, Feng Ji


Bloodstain pattern analysis, BPA, on hard surfaces (such as walls, tables, appliances, hardwood floors, etc.) has grown into a science-based investigative tool that can help determine scenarios that are consistent with or counter to the events described by witnesses or suspects. At the vast majority of crime scenes involving a bloodletting event, textiles are present as apparel, household textiles (sheets, towels), upholstery, carpets, and so forth. Yet, the science of BPA is not able to render the same level of confidence in the analysis as on hard surfaces due to the complex structure of textiles and their ability to wick liquids. In the work described herein, a detailed examination of factors that affect BPA on two textile fabrics, an unbalanced 130 x 70 plain woven 100% cotton bed sheeting fabric (often referred to as a 200 thread count bed sheet) and a 100% cotton jersey knit T-shirt fabric.

During this study, both porcine blood and several synthetic blood recipes were used. The dynamic impact tests (time after impact < 100 ms) used porcine blood, while most wetting and wicking experiments employed synthetic blood (time after impact > 100 ms). Most of the synthetic blood recipes examined performed badly. Either they would not dry or they did not wick into the fabrics, but remained on the surface. A synthetic blood recipe from the American Society for Testing Material (ASTM test method F1819-07) performed well, but its viscosity and surface tension were both lower than typical human blood. Thus, this recipe was modified to lie within the range of surface tension and viscosity of human blood. It was used for the majority of wicking and wetting experiments. In a preliminary comparison, it was found that synthetic blood SB5 behaved similarly to porcine blood in many aspects, but the SB5 stains were significantly larger than the porcine bloodstains. We attributed this difference to the presence of red blood cells, which behave as particles, as well as plasma, which behaves as a liquid, in porcine blood. SB5 is an aqueous solution and behaves entirely as a liquid. Continue reading

Intent Behind the Bullet

by D.H. Garrison, Jr.

Originally published in the Association of Firearm Toolmark Examiners Journal, Oct. 1993.

Just because a shot was fired, and just because someone was injured or died as a result of the shooting, and just because a shooting reconstruction was completed…this does not mean that the expert can render an opinion about the intent behind the bullet thus fired.

While many an attorney, whether prosecution or defense, wants to “prove” the intent or lack thereof to a jury, and sometimes tries to use a expert witness to accomplish that end, this does not mean that the shooting reconstruction expert has any scientific basis whatsoever to state an opinion as to what was or was not the intention of the shooter at the moment of the shooting. Intent, after all, is usually an “ultimate issue” and, thus, the purview of the jury, the finders of fact, and cannot properly be addressed by the expert.[1] Continue reading

An Introduction to Crime Scene Reconstruction for the Criminal Profiler

by Daryl W. Clemens

This article originally appeared in the MAFS newsletter, 27(2), April 1998.


Crime Scene Reconstruction- The use of scientific methods, physical evidence, deductive reasoning and their interrelationships to gain explicit knowledge of the series of events that surround the commission of a crime.
-Association for Crime Scene Reconstruction, The Scene, 4(1), Jan 1997, p. 2.

Criminal Profiling- The application of psychological theory to the analysis and reconstruction of the forensic evidence that relates to an offender’s crime scenes, victims and behaviors.
– Turvey, B., “CP101: An Introduction to Criminal Profiling”, Online Course,, May 1997.

While both of these activities may appear to be similar and are in fact related, it is important to note that they are not the same. The difference between the two is most easily understood by looking at which questions about the crime they attempt to answer.1,2,3,4 Crime Scene Reconstruction looks at the physical evidence and attempts to determine “What happened?” and “How did it happen?”.5,6 Criminal Profiling looks at the physical evidence and the reconstruction and attempts to determine “Why may this have happened?” and “What does that tell us about Who may have done it?”.7 It is important to keep in mind that only those directly involved in the crime know for sure what happened and why, and they may be unable or unwilling to say. 8,9

Continue reading

Why Crime Scene Reconstruction Does Not Answer the Why? Question

By Dean H. Garrison, Jr.

This article originally appeared in the MAFS newsletter April 1996.

“I tend not to try to determine why people do things at crime scenes.”
-Criminalist Charles Morton
California v Menedez II, Trial transcript 12-5-95

Crime scene reconstruction may answer the question of where a victim was standing when an axe hit him or who stepped in the pool of blood by the door or what caused the revolver’s hammer to fall or when the third shot hit the car window or how the knife ended up out on the patio, but the crime scene reconstructionist cannot answer the ultimate question, the final question that tugs at everyone’s mind, the all-encompassing, all-seeing, all-knowing question of WHY did the crime happen? This may account for the fact that attorneys (for either side) very seldom ask “Why?” questions. Continue reading