This article originally appeared in Minutiae, the Lightning Powder Co. Newsletter, #43, July-August 1997.

Even though magnetic powder has been available since the early 1960′s, many latent print examiners and crime scene technicians are still not using it to full advantage. Magnetic powder adds a wide range of flexibility to one’s resources. In general, magnetic powder is used on non-magnetic surfaces, and regular powder on iron-based surfaces. However, regular fingerprint powder is inappropriate for some surfaces, including many plastics and textured surfaces, where magnetic powder develops latent prints very well. Textured surfaces such as vinyl imitation-leather or lightly textured automobile dashboards or door panels often respond well to magnetic powder, where regular powder would pack into the low places in the texturing and make development of a good latent impossible. In addition, using the “hot breath” technique, also known as “huffing” works better with magnetic powder than with regular powder.

With magnetic powder, there is no brush with fibers to touch and possibly damage the print. The powder is not itself magnetic, but is attracted by a magnet and carried as whiskers by a magnetic wand. Nothing but the powder itself touches the print. The wand is a closed, hollow tube containing a magnet on a rod. When the rod is pushed in, the magnet is located at the end of the tube and the powder clings to that end. When the rod is pulled out, the magnet is moved to the center of the tube and the powder falls off. With the rod in and a cluster of powder whiskers on the end, you are ready to dust for latent prints.

With regular powder, the more you pass back and forth over the print, the more powder you add to the latent. The opposite is often true of magnetic powder. The first sweep across a surface usually yields as dark a print as you will get. Going back and forth repeatedly will lighten and eventually erase a latent. Therefor, normally, one would stop dusting as soon as a latent appears. However, this characteristic can sometimes be used to advantage. For example, a heavy, greasy print may show up initially as a solid patch, but repeated passes with the wand may actually remove powder from the furrows and yield an identifiable print. This is especially true of greasy prints on car bodies.

Another advantage of magnetic powder is the way in which it lends itself to use with “hot breath.” This technique is necessary in dry, desert climates, but may not be needed often in humid areas. When confronted with a “dead print,” that is, one from which all of the moisture and oil has evaporate, the print can be temporarily re-humidified by “huffing” breath on it from approximately six inches, then sweeping across it with the magnetic powder before the moisture can completely evaporate. Sweeping across the area too soon can result in a general coating of powder, and the resultant destruction of any latent prints. Likewise, waiting too long can result in complete evaporation of the moisture and no print development. A little practice, however, allows one to effectively use this technique. From day to day and surface to surface, slight modification must be made in the time delay between huffing and dusting, but one learns to modify one’s approach quickly as conditions change. The “hot breath” technique is especially useful on plastic bags and similar plastics, and should be tried on any surface where regular powder fails to develop any prints.

In general, magnetic powder is not recommended for surfaces which are themselves attracted to the magnet. However, occasionally magnetic powder will yield a cleaner, crisper print than regular powder. Excess powder may be removed by lightly tapping the object against another surface to dislodge the magnetic particles. Magnetic powder and the “hot breath” technique may also be very productive on a vehicle body following dusting with regular powder. Process the vehicle as usual with regular powder and photograph and lift all latent prints of value. Then reprocess the vehicle in critical areas such as those below the door windows or the roof above the doors, using hot breath and magnetic powder. Frequently, more prints will develop with the magnetic powder than with the regular. Be sure and gently blow off excess powder before photographing or lifting your latent prints.

Copyright Info

Edmond Locard was the founder of the Institute of Criminalistics at the University of Lyon in France. Locard believed that that when on person came in contact with another person or object a cross transfer of minute particles occurred. This theory became known as the “Locard Exchange Principle”. Locard believed that crimes could be solved by inspecting the “dust particles” carried to and from a scene. This science is known today as criminalistics and has led to the rise of the forensics laboratory (from Mount Royal College background notes FORE 4407 section 3: Unit 4) Francois Goron, head of the French Surete, seems to be one of the first modern investigators who tried to use hair to identify a killer. In his first case hairs found clutched in a dead woman’s hand could not be identified as human simply because there was no information on the subject.

The inability of the scientific community to distinguish between animal and human hair raised interest in the analysis of hair. In the years that followed researchers began to collect information about the structure of human and animal hair (Block, 1979). In 1899, several years after his original failure, in a case known as “L’affaire Gouffe” Francois Goron was able to establish that a murder victim’s hair had been dyed. Establishing this simple fact led to the identification of Gouffe’s body and subsequently to the arrest of his killers (Block 1979). Francios Goron had successfully used forensic hair examination to solve a crime.

The success of this case and others has led to extensive research into the nature of hair and how it can be used in forensic investigations. In this article I will attempt to cover some of the basic information regarding the collection and use of hair as forensic evidence. Hair must never be used as the sole indicator of guilt. Visual comparison alone is subjective and open to interpretation of the individual scientists. However, when hair is used in conjunction with D.N.A. and other evidence it can be a powerful tool for an investigator.

Hair is in all likelihood one of the most common types of trace evidence (Nickell, J. & Fischer, J. 1999). Hair is extremely variable among both individuals and racial populations (Crocker 1999) (Saferstein, 2004) (Greenshields & Scheurman, 2001). Great care must be used in the use of hair as evidence. Hair may in some cases rule out certain populations or help identify an unknown victim (Block, 1979). Cross transfer of hair from a victim to a suspect or vice versa may substantially raise the probability that the victim and perpetrator were in contact (Cocker, 1999). However, it can never be used as the so called “smoking gun” which would prove a person’s guilt. As with most forensic evidence the information obtained from hair is expressed in terms of probabilities of a match rather than an absolute match (Crocker, 1999).

Collection of Evidence

Methods of collecting hair evidence vary according to the scope and the circumstances of the investigation (Greenshields & Scheurman, 2001). In some circumstances more than one method of collection will be utilized. In general the methods of collection hair as potential evidence have not changed since the last quarter of the 19th century (Bisbing, 2001).

There are six main methods of collection. The first is collection of visually observed hairs. The investigator may collect visual observable hairs by hand or with tweezers. The use of tweezers is not recommended in most cases because they can cause damage to the structure of the hair. Tweezers can also crush the delicate root structure and surrounding tissue which is used in D.N.A. analysis (Greenshields & Scheurman, 2001) (Bisbing, 2001) Forensic light sources such as infrared or laser may be used to enhance the ability of the investigator to visually identify hairs (Greenshields & Scheurman, 2001) (Crocker, 1999) Clear tape can be used to lift both visible and non-visible hair from a variety of surfaces. In Canada this is the most widely used method (Crocker, 1999) Clear tape can be used in either a roller type form or as sheets. When sheets or squares are used on a garment each section will be labeled as to which part of the garment the samples were obtained from (Bisbing , 2001) It is important that the tape is not so sticky that it becomes clogged with fibres from then garment or material it is used on (Crocker, 1999).

Vacuuming method of collection used for large crime scenes or where the most likely points of transfer or unknown. Vacuuming can also be used on stationary objects which cannot be transported (Greensheilds & Scheurman, 2001). The vacuums used by investigators are fitted with a special filter which can be removed and labeled appropriately. (Crocker, 1999)

Another method of collection is brushing, scraping or shaking of garment or other cloth objects. The material being examined is held over a white sheet of paper and abraded in order to dislodge and hair adhering to it (Bisbing, 2001) Trace evidence found on the white paper is then separated into classes such as hair, fibre, glass etc. and analyzed accordingly. This method is the second most commonly used method in Canada for the collection of trace evidence. (Crocker, 1999)

Some garments and other fabrics may be placed in a bag and agitated. This method allows the investigator to collect the evidence at the bottom of the bag rather than have it disperse into the air (Bisbing, 2001).

Finally, when collecting hair evidence combing and clipping are methods used. When looking for cross transference of hair (usually pubic) from a suspect to a victim or vice versa combing is used to extract loose hairs (Greenshields & Scheurman, 2001)( Bisbing, 2001) (Saferstein, 2004) Anyone who may have left hair at a crime scene should be sampled for comparison purposes. Approximately 100 scalp hairs from various areas of the head should be pulled and combed. Pubic and other body hair can be pulled, clipped and combed. Approximately 30-50 hairs should be collected and labeled as to the body area of origin and the method of collection (Greensheilds & Scheurman, 2001) (Bisbing, 2001) (Saferstein, 2004).

Structure of hair

A hair sample is analyzed as a whole and in cross section.

When viewed as a whole a hair consists of three parts. These three parts are the root, the shaft and the tip. The length and the shape of a hair can be used to identify the place on the body from which it originated (Innes, 2000) Sites of origin are considered to be the scalp, eyebrow , beard, underarm, body and pubic region (Lane, 1992) Some researchers also include ear hair as a separate region of origin (Crocker,1999)

A man is found dead in an abandoned house. Upon examination the medical examiner finds that the man was killed by a single gunshot to the head. Three local teens where observed near the house two days earlier. They are picked up and questioned by police. When pressured, the teens admit to having stolen one of the boys’ father’s guns. They had taken turns shooting at the windows of an abandoned house.

The teens admit that John shot the gun first, then Jay and last was Fred. At the scene the investigators find three bullet holes in a window. They analyze the angle of each bullet hole in relation to the victim and find that the bullet which passed through the far right side of the window pane is the one which fatally wounded the man.

It is up to the investigators to determine the order of the shots. This will tell them which boy fired the fatal shot and allow the investigators to work out what the charges will be against the shooter. Examination of the fractures in the glass will tell them this.

When a projectile such as a bullet or stone hits a glass surface the impact causes changes, in the form of fractures, to occur within the glass. When a projectile smashes into the surface of a glass pane the glass bends slightly before it breaks. Some of the energy required to propel the bullet forward is absorbed by the glass .When the glass reaches a certain point of distortion it breaks and the projectile passes through the glass. In accordance with the laws of physics the energy from the projectile which was absorbed by the glass will dissipate along the path of least resistance. Cracks occur in the glass as energy dissipates through the glass. Shock waves of energy emanate from the point of impact causing specific types of damage to the glass. This is what makes it possible to determine the order of fractures. As well, the various types of fractures in glass can tell an investigator the angle of impact and the side of a glass pane on which the impact occurred.

When the projectile hits a glass surface the glass bends and energy dissipating from the point of impact causes ‘radial’ fractures to occur on the side of the glass opposite the point of impact.

Waves of energy from the projectile reverberate from the point of impact causing the glass to fracture in a cone shape. The result is small entrance hole and a larger exit hole in the glass. Surrounding the hole made by a projectile there will be concentric rings know as ‘concentric fractures’.

Radial fractures will always travel along the path of least resistance. They will always end if they encounter an existing fracture line.

Radial fractures are also useful in determining the direction a pane of glass was struck from. Stress marks on the edges of the radial fractures conform in a specific way which will show the direction of impact. Stress marks are curved. One end of the curve runs parallel to the glass surface. The other end of the curve runs perpendicular to the glass. The side of the glass which has stress marks which are parallel to the surface is the side which sustained the impact (Saferstein, 2004).

Very often the glass in question is shattered and must be pieced back together. An investigator can start with the frame which is labeled as to which side is the inside and which is the outside. Loose pieces of glass can be matched up with pieces still adhering to the frame.

Once the pieces are all in place the point of impact can be determined. The radial fractures can be examined to determine from which side the glass was broken.

Determining the side from which glass was broken is important in burglaries and other crimes involving home invasion. Arson investigators have particular interest in knowing whether a pane of glass was broken from the inside or the outside. Windows broken from the inside at the top of a structure can indicate an attempt to ventilate the building. Ventilation causes the fire to spread upward following the source of oxygen. A fire started at the bottom of a structure can be made to race through a structure more rapidly than normal by ventilating the upper levels.

The concentric fractures form on the same side of the glass surface as the point of impact. When glass breaks most of the glass falls inward. However, the tiny shards produced in the formation the concentric fractures spray backwards towards the person wielding the weapon or tool (Lane, 1992) (Innes, 2002). These tiny bits of glass can get caught in the hair and clothing of a person near the point of impact. Even after washing, tiny fragments of glass can remain caught in the fibers of clothing and footwear. When a gun is fired at a glass surface, tiny particles of glass can spray back up to 18 feet (Innes, 2002)

This Article Originally Appeared in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, October 1996.

(In statement analysis, investigators examine words, independent of case facts, to detect deception.)

Susan Smith stood outside her burgundy sedan and released the parking brake. The car plunged down the ramp into South Carolina’s Long Lake, with her sons, Michael, 3, and Alexander, 14 months, strapped into their car seats. To cover her actions, Susan told police that the boys were abducted at gunpoint, launching a nationwide search for the victims and their abductor. During the investigation, Susan tearfully told reporters, “My children wanted me. They needed me. And now I can’t help them.”¹

Yet, the boys’ father, David, who believed Susan’s story, tried to reassure her by saying: “They’re okay. They’re going to be home soon.”²

Police subsequently arrested Susan for the murder of her children. She was tried and convicted and is currently serving a life sentence in a South Carolina correctional institution. Many investigators use a technique called “statement analysis” to discern the truth in statements like the ones given by Susan and David Smith. In statement analysis, investigators examine words, independent of case facts, to detect deception. They also remain alert for information omitted and question why the suspect may have done so. Investigators then analyze the clues unintentionally provided by a suspect and use this insight during the subsequent interview.

In the case of Susan Smith, by analyzing the statements made by the victims’ parents, one could conclude that the father believed the boys were alive and the mother knew the children were dead. The key to this deduction lies in simple English grammar, specifically, verb tense. The father referred to the children in the present tense; the mother used the past tense. Of all times, when the “abducted” children really would need their mother, she speaks of them in the past tense, e.g., “They needed me.” The children could no longer want or need her because they were no longer alive.

This article gives a brief overview of statement analysis. It examines four components of statement analysis–parts of speech (pronouns, nouns, and verbs), extraneous information, lack of conviction, and the balance of the statement. A word of caution is warranted here. There is much more to statement analysis than what is provided in this article; space limitations preclude incorporating other statement analysis components, such as the remaining parts of speech and the numerous indicators of missing information. Still, armed with the information presented in this article, investigators will be able to use these basic techniques to gain insight into a suspect prior to conducting an interview. By learning more about a suspect and determining whether that person is being deceptive, they have a much better chance of identifying the guilty party and gaining a confession.

The Technique

Statement analysis follows a two-step process. First, investigators determine what is typical of a truthful statement, referred to as the norm. They then look for any deviation from this norm. Truthful statements differ from fabricated ones in both content and quality.³

Although spoken words can be analyzed, investigators inexperienced in statement analysis will find it easier to begin by examining written statements. Investigators can make transcripts of oral statements. Or, even better, they can have suspects write a statement that details what they did from the time they woke up until the time they went to bed. This account provides a totally untainted version of the day’s events and increases the validity of the analysis. Statement analysis is an aid that can be used to obtain a confession; it is not an end in itself. Therefore, whenever possible, investigators should analyze the statement before interviewing the suspect.

Important Parts Of Speech

Parts of speech form the foundation of statement analysis. To analyze a statement, investigators first need to examine the individual parts of speech, particularly pronouns, nouns, and verbs, and to establish the norm for each. If a deviation from the norm appears, they then should ask, “Why?”

Pronouns
Pronouns are parts of speech that take the place of nouns. Common examples of personal pronouns include I, me, you, he, she, we, they, and it. In statement analysis, particular attention should be given to the personal pronouns “I” and “we” and all possessive pronouns, such as my, our, your, his, her, etc. The Pronoun “I” Investigators have noted that truthful people give statements using the pronoun “I,” which is first person, singular. Any deviation from this norm deserves close scrutiny, for it could be an indication that the person is not totally committed to the facts in the statement and, therefore, is not telling the whole truth.

The following written narrative begins with a clear commitment, then shows a definite lack of commitment:

“I got up at 7:00 when my alarm went off. I took a shower and got dressed. I decided to go out for breakfast. I went to the McDonald’s on the corner. Met a man who lives nearby. Talked with him for a few minutes. I finished breakfast and drove to work.”

The first four sentences of the statement match the norm of first person, singular–the use of the pronoun “I”; the next two sentences show deviation, because this pronoun is missing from the statement. What caused the writer to stop using the pronoun “I”? Any change in the use of pronouns is significant, and at this point, investigators should realize that the statement now becomes devoid of personal involvement. Could there be tension between the writer and the man mentioned in the statement? During the interview, investigators should draw out specifics about this relationship to determine if this part of the narrative is really true or if the writer omitted information.

This article originally appeared in Minutiae, the Lightning Powder Co. Newsletter, #45, November-December 1997.

Perhaps the most productive and cost-effective method of developing latent fingerprints on paper is treatment with Ninhydrin. Freshly-mixed Ninhydrin solutions are less expensive and more dependable than premixed aerosol cans or pump spray dispensers. While the premixed containers are ready for instant use when purchased, safety experts today caution against spraying and instead encourage either dipping or painting to apply the solution.

The problem with spraying Ninhydrin solutions is that, even in a fume hood, airborne particles of Ninhydrin dust can form as the carrier evaporates. These microscopic particles may not be effectively removed from the lab by the fume hood, and may find their way back into the air you breathe. Since Ninhydrin reacts with amino acids, any exposure to your body, especially to your eyes or lungs, could have serious results. This potentially dangerous exposure is minimized by dipping or painting.

Protective gear should be worn when using Ninhydrin. Latex gloves are not adequate protection against Ninhydrin solutions. Latex allows some chemicals to pass through and can actually dissolve in other chemicals. Nitrile gloves are recommended as they are more resistant to chemicals, thus offering better protection. Chemical resistant gloves, goggles, breathing mask, and a lab coat should be worn whenever working with Ninhydrin solutions.

If a questioned document examination for handwriting or indented writing is desired, it should always be done prior to a latent print examination. Many of the subtle writing characteristics used by document examiners and any indented writing are lost during chemical processing. In addition, a document examiner may be able to testify that the suspect actually wrote the document, while a latent print examiner can only testify the suspect handled the paper. In the absence of suspects, however, a latent print may yield results through AFIS.

The simplest Ninhydrin solution to prepare is made by pouring 25 grams of Ninhydrin crystals into a gallon (or 4 liters) of solvent. The easiest solvent to obtain is acetone, which is available at any paint store. Methyl Alcohol (methanol) works well, also. The major drawback to these solvents is that they dissolve or run most inks. If the writing itself is important, the document should be photographed and photographed and photocopied prior to chemical treatment.

A more sophisticated solution may be prepared by dissolving 5 grams of Ninhydrin in 75 millilitres of ethyl alcohol (ethanol). To this, add 25 milliliters of ethyl acetate and 3 milliliters of acetic acid. Finally, add this solution to 1 liter of heptane. This formula is more effective on papers with calcium carbonate whiteners in them because it facilitates the reaction by maintaining a slightly acidic environment. The heptane formula is also less apt to run or dissolve inks.

To “dip” the document, choose a clean tray, such as a photographic developer tray, big enough to hold the document lying flat. Put enough Ninhydrin solution in the tray to cover the bottom and simply lay the document in the solution. Remove the item and lay the item in again, other side down. Remove the item again and allow excess solution to run off into the tray. Place the document on a piece of blotter paper or other clean paper to finish drying. Or construct a “clothes line” to hang up the papers inside the fume hood.

To “paint” the document, clamp a clean cotton ball in forceps, dip the cotton ball into the Ninhydrin solution, and dab or paint the document with the wet cotton. Make sure the entire surface is wetted with the solution. Allow the document to dry.

Development of prints may be expedited by application of moist heat. The simplest method of doing that is to hold a steam iron an inch or so above the document and allow the hot steam to lightly waft across the document. Do not apply the iron directly to the paper or allow droplets of water from the iron to contaminate the paper. While steaming will rapidly develop most prints on the paper, it may overdevelop the background and take away from the contrast of the prints. An alternate method is to simply allow several days for the prints to develop without the moist head, constantly monitoring the paper to catch the prints at their peak development and contrast.

Once developed, latent prints should be photographed, as they are prone to fade with time. Fading can be delayed by storing the item in an airtight plastic bag after it is dry and the prints have reached optimum development.

Copyright Info

This article originally appeared in Minutiae, the Lightning Powder Co. Newsletter, #44, Sep-Oct 1997.

Some latent print technicians believe superglue should be listed second only to powder as the most effective latent print development technique. Others believe it should come first. Either way, no one can deny that superglue fuming is the most revolutionary new method to be discovered since the invention of powder. Superglue fuming works on many surfaces where powder is ineffective, such as plastics, and has the advantage of fixing the print on the surface for later presentation in court.

First, you need a more or less airtight container to hold the evidence. Three elements are necessary inside the chamber: superglue fumes, humidity and warmth. For a chamber, I regularly use a large coffee can for small items such as a handgun or a baggie of dope. An aquarium is an ideal medium-size chamber. For a large chamber, an old refrigerator body with removable wire shelves is excellent. I have also used cardboard boxes (with the seams taped) and plastic garbage bags (blown up loosely like a balloon, then closed with a wire twist).

For humidity inside the chamber, you first need to analyze the humidity outside the chamber and the temperature of the surroundings. If you are in a warm location with high humidity, you probably do not need to add any moisture to the chamber in order to get good results. If the humidity in your area is low or the temperature is cold, a glass of hot tap water works well in a small chamber, while a tray (such as a photo developing tray) of hot tap water works well in a large chamber. In a coffee can, a long huff of breath adds plenty of moisture. Be careful not to put very cold evidence into a warm, humid chamber, as condensation may damage latent prints. Allow cold evidence to warm up before placing it into a chamber.

For warmth, again analyze your surroundings. In a warm climate, perhaps no warming device is necessary for the chamber. The best results seem to occur at about 100 degrees Fahrenheit with 80% humidity. In a large chamber, such as an old refrigerator body, one or two 200-watt light bulbs will raise the temperature to a good range, even on a cold day. Cheap ceramic light fixtures mounted into the floor of the refrigerator are perfect. Run the electrical cord out the door, and the rubber gasket will seal around the cord when you close the door. Then you can simply plug the cord in to turn on the lights.

Introducing the superglue fumes into the chamber is the last step. Some technicians prefer the glue packets which peel apart like Polaroid film. Some prefer plain liquid glue. In the coffee can, drip 10 or 12 drops around the side of the can near the top. Place the evidence in the can, being careful not to allow it to become glued to the can. Finally, huff some breath into the can as you gently snap the lid down. Five or ten minutes should be sufficient time. In a 5 gallon aquarium, I would use 10 to 12 drops of glue in a small aluminum dish, either on a hot plate or floating in hot water (do not allow water to get into the glue, or vice versa, as that will restrict the fuming action). In a larger chamber, calculate the amount of glue at the rate of one-ounce (28 g) per 100 cubic feet of container volume. Again, a hot plate helps evaporate the glue. If you are using light bulbs mounted on the floor to heat the chamber, you can construct a grill immediately above the top of the light bulb, even in contact with it, and place the small pan of glue directly over the light bulb to evaporate the glue. In containers larger than the coffee can, I generally use about 30 minutes fuming time.

The Home Office at Scotland Yard rates superglue fumes as nontoxic, but irritating. The fumes should be vented away from you, or the container should be placed in a fume hood or other location that allows good ventilation, such as an outdoor shed or carport. Some people are able to open the chamber within the office and it doesn’t bother them. This is not the best recommended method. Please read the MSDS for the properties of superglue. If you accidentally glue skin to skin, or get superglue in your eyes, get immediate medical attention.

The best way to learn how to use glue effectively is to experiment. It is a simple, dependable process. It even makes a great science fair project for student in school. For the cost of a tube of superglue from the grocery store, and an old coffee can, your elementary or junior-high age children can construct a fantastic science experiment which will be a guaranteed attention-getter at the school science fair. You can achieve even more impressive results in the lab with a little effort and practice.

Copyright Info

This Article Originally Appeared in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, July 1990.

In recent years, just as the investigation of a crime scene has become more complex and sophisticated, so has the task of the forensic anthropologist. Forensic anthropologists assist medical and legal specialists to identify known or suspected human remains.

The science of forensic anthropology includes archeological excavation; examination of hair, insects, plant materials and footprints; determination of elapsed time since death; facial reproduction; photographic superimposition; detection of anatomical variants; and analysis of past injury and medical treatment. However, in practice, forensic anthropologists primarily help to identify a decedent based on the available evidence.

For example, when a skeleton found in a wooded area is brought to a morgue or an anthropologist’s laboratory for examination, the first step is to determine whether the remains are human, animal, or inorganic material. If human, an anthropologist then attempts to estimate age at death, racial affiliation, sex, and stature of the decedent.

If the skeleton shows evidence of prolonged burial or is accompanied by coffin nails or arrow points, it usually represents an historic or prehistoric burial rather than a recent death. Construction crews frequently unearth such skeletons during road or housing excavations. After combining all of the evidence, the anthropologist determines the skeleton’s possible significance to medical and legal authorities.

Although the primary task of anthropologists is to establish the identity of a decedent, increasingly they provide expert opinion on the type and size of weapon(s) used and the number of blows sustained by victims of violent crime. It should be noted, however, that forensic pathologists or related experts in forensic medicine determine the cause or manner of death, not the forensic anthropologist.

Most anthropologists have advanced degrees in anthropology and have examined hundreds of remains. They are also thoroughly familiar with human anatomy and how it varies in different populations. Some anthropologists may also have experience in police science or medicine, as well as in serology, toxicology, firearms and toolmarks identification, crime scene investigation, handling of evidence, and photography. A limited number of anthropologists deal with footprint analysis and species identification of carrion insects in relation to estimating time elapsed since death.

Perhaps the anthropologist’s most valuable skill is familiarity with subtle variations in the human skeleton. Although most adult skeletons have the same number of bones (206), no two skeletons are identical. Therefore, observations of patterns or unique skeletal traits frequently lead to positive identifications. The most frequently used method for identification is to compare before- and after-death dental photoimages. If such photoimages do not exist, or if they are unavailable, then old skeletal injuries or anatomical skeletal variants revealed in other photoimages may provide the comparative evidence necessary to establish a positive identification.

Hypothetical Example

Suppose hunters find a partially clothed skeleton lying on the ground in a heavily wooded area with much of its clothing torn and scattered by carnivores. Law enforcement officers are called to the scene, as is the medical examiner or nonphysician coroner. The scene is photographed in detail, and the skeleton is examined and photographed before being removed to the city morgue.

At the morgue, the medical examiner examines the remains for evidence of trauma, such as stab marks in the shirt, blunt trauma to the skull and mandible, and broken bones. Photoimages and photographs of the body show that no bullets or pellets having been noted. Also, examination of the clothing reveals no wallet or other personal identification.

The medical examiner determines through measurement of the pubic area that the remains are those of a middle-aged adult male. There is no evidence of facial or head hair to aid in determining racial affiliation. From measurements taken at the scene, the examiner roughly estimates the stature. Also, a forensic odontologist is called in to take dental photoimages. Although the decedent has a number of large dental cavities, he shows no restorations or evidence of having seen a dentist. At this point, the medical examiner requests assistance from a forensic anthropologist, who conducts further study of the remains in the laboratory.

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]

Only psychiatrists and psychologists, those paragons of consistently precise opinion and sound experimental scientific integrity, are capable of tackling the issue of intent, often termed “the ability or lack thereof to form the specific intent to commit the crime in question” or words to that effect. And what person endowed with scientific thought would want to wade into the quagmire of psychiatric expert testimony anyway?

In shooting reconstruction, as with all reconstruction, the practitioner’s work tries to answer the questions, What happened? and How did it happen? This might be modified somewhat, during an attorney’s hypothetical question, to What may have happened? and How may it have happened? What attorneys seldom understand about reconstructionists is that they might not know what happened or may have happened or how, but they can often tell you in an instant WHAT DIDN’T HAPPEN. What reconstructionists cannot answer is WHY? This is the job of the jury.

“I think that reenactment showed that he had an intent to kill.”
- District Attorney John Posey[2]

Frequently, attorneys try to bolster their cases for or against an alleged intent matter by disguising a question to an expert as something vaguely science-like in nature. Such a question might look like this: “Mr. Johnson, based on your expertise and your years of experience both with firearms and ammunition, and knowing the velocity in feet-per-second of the shot Mr. Defendant fired at his deceased wife in the hallway of their home, and knowing the distance from the casing found at the scene and the point where Mrs. Defendant fell dead, could you give us an opinion as to whether a shooter in the doorway at the east end of the hall could reasonably expect (read “intend”) to miss his wife, firing it as he obviously did?” The answer, of course, is “No” or “Huh?”, depending on how foolish you want the attorney to look.

Criminal prosecutors will call a firearm a “weapon,” while defense attorneys will call it a “gun.” When prosecutors talk about the defendant “aiming” and “firing” the weapon, defense attorneys respond with phrases like “where the barrel was pointing when the gun went off.” The former will say “finger on the trigger,” while the latter speak of “finger in the area of the trigger guard,” and plaintiff attorneys suing gun manufacturers say “inadvertent physical movement in proximity to the negligently designed and defective trigger mechanism.” All of these advocates have a vested interest in their choice of words (hence the term “mouthpiece”), which emerges in the wording of their courtroom questions to you. Just as you wouldn’t allow attorneys to refer to a cartridge as a “bullet,” you should not let them confuse an action with an intent or a gunshot wound with a bull’s-eye.

Intent questions are often heavily draped in the sacramental robes of scientific jargon. At times they even sound reasonable in that they almost seem to appeal to one’s common sense, as in: “Do you expect us to believe that the weapon discharged accidentally with Mr. Defendant not meaning to shoot his wife?” Well, yes and no. No one but the shooter, and often not even he, knows his true intent. And the reason we’re all in court, of course, is so the jurors can try to determine the shooter’s intent. But people who investigate shootings for a living are not in the intent business and should be particularly wary of those cleverly disguised questions, whether they come from an attorney “on your side” or an “opposing counsel.”

“[The Expert] agreed under cross-examination last Wednesday that he was not testifying that either of the officers was aiming at Lawson’s head when they fired six shots at the car after Lawson tried to run them down.”
- The Toronto Star[3]

Of course, we’ve all faced the cross-examiner with the “Isn’t it possible…” series of questions that’s meant to end with a flustered witness wearily admitting that, “Yes, anything’s possible.” Attorneys slip intent questions into the dark corners of such Q&A marathons. Such as, “Isn’t it possible that Mr. Defendant intended to fire a warning shot into his Siamese cat just to scare his wife?” The answer to this one is, “Yes, and it’s possible that if his wife had been in Cleveland at the time, she wouldn’t have gotten shot.”

Most of the time an alert opposing attorney will leap to his feet when an improper intent question is posed. Sometimes, after a lunch hour, when the judge is napping and the jurors are nodding off, a lawyer will try to slide by a question of intent to the shooting reconstructionist on the witness stand. This is the time to ask for a repeat of the question or a clarification to highlight the words “intended” or “meant to” or “expected.” If this doesn’t work, it’s time to proudly disavow any knowledge whatsoever of anybody’s intentions, expectations, or what they meant to do or not do or might have not meant to do, etc. The easiest way to do this is to say, “I don’t know what the shooter intended.” If you don’t, you can soon expect the other attorney to ask something like, “You don’t know what was intended, you weren’t there, were you?”

Q: So you can’t–again, it’s just your opinion as to where the bullet or where the defect or whatever it was in the—that was in—that actually was in the paint, you can’t tell whether that would have hit anybody or was intended to hit anybody?

A: No, I can’t determine any intent behind a bullet.
- Annie King, GRPD[4]

Naturally you have formed private opinions about the intent of shooters in cases you’ve investigated, but you didn’t (or shouldn’t have been allowed to) stand up in court and declare these judgments aloud. Such opinions have no place in your testimony. Let the attorneys get into “what the shooter really meant to do” during their closing arguments. This is why judges frequently admonish jurors that “the arguments of the attorneys do not constitute evidence.”

After all, we don’t really know what the shooter meant to do, we couldn’t. That’s for a jury to answer: it’s called a verdict. If you look over at the accused shooter sitting with his lawyer, you probably wouldn’t want to look inside his mind anyway, much less claim any scientific certainty about what you think that he intended.

Just because someone got shot and you did your job investigating it and you’re here and the accused is there, it doesn’t mean that you know what he meant to do. . .no matter who asks the question.

Notes

1. Moenssens, A., Moses, R., and Inbau, F., Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases, Foundation Press: NY, 1973, p. 17.
2. Posey, J., Marin County (California) District Attorney, “Scene of the Crime,” 48 Hours: Hard Evidence, CBS television, producer Rita Braver, May 13, 1992.
3. Crook, F., “Crown Ends Case at Officers’ Trial,” The Toronto Star, March 14, 1992, p. A-18.
4. King, A., Grand Rapids (Michigan) Police Department Crime Scene Technician, 61st District Court transcript, MI v May, July 1992, p. 15.

Copyright Info

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

Definitions:

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,
http://www.corpus-delicti.com, May 1997.
Introduction

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

Why is it important to reconstruct the crime prior to profiling the offender? The answer is simple; until you know what happened, and how it happened (at least as much as possible), you have no basis for attempting to determine why and who.

This paper is intended as an overview of the types of reconstruction which may be possible and is not all inclusive (the number and types of things that may be reconstructed is like types of physical evidence- nearly limitless). For more specific information check the references or contact an expert in the field in question.

Types of Reconstruction

(Lee, pp. 192-3, lists 5 categories of reconstruction; one deals only with the amount of reconstruction done, and another lists several activities including criminal profiling which are not truly reconstruction).¹⁰

1. Specific Incident Reconstruction (Traffic Accident, Homicide, Bombing, etc.).
2. Specific Event Reconstruction (Sequence, Direction, Condition, Relation, Identity).
3. Specific Physical Evidence Reconstruction (Firearms, Blood, Glass etc.).

In any given scene it may be possible to do a total or only partial reconstruction, and the reconstruction may use more than one technique (i.e. both trajectory and blood stain pattern reconstruction to locate the position of the victim).¹¹ Some scenes lend themselves to reconstruction better than others. Traffic accidents are common scenes to reconstruct and often can be thoroughly reconstructed. Vehicles are rather massive objects that obey the laws of motion and often leave a wealth of physical evidence behind before, during and after an accident. It may be possible to show the entire sequence of events from the time the vehicles first enter the area of the accident until they come to rest following the accident.^12,13,14

Scenes involving the movement of people are more difficult. While it may be possible to say where a person was in the scene at several points in time, the manner in which they moved in the scene cannot be reconstructed. People may move slowly, quickly, hesitantly, jump up and down, run, skip, fall down, etc. all without leaving any particular trace behind. That said, there are of course the odd cases where the amount and type of physical evidence does allow the paths of the participants to be tracked with some accuracy; however, the vagaries of facial expression, gestures, and body language are simply impossible to reconstruct at all.^15,16

Below are some examples of the types of information which reconstruction may provide, again, this is not an all inclusive list. Some items also appear in more than one category, and it may be possible to use information from several areas to complete or validate the final reconstruction.

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.

What happened and How it happened cover almost all of reconstruction work. The “Why?” question is an ultimate issue, something to be contemplated by ministers, psychologists, widows, and jurors. How a shot struck a victim is not the same as Why it struck the victim. Some very excellent works [Bevel, Rynearson, Chisum] on the subject of crime scene reconstruction mention Why as one of the questions answerable by the reconstructionist. These authors are more accurately addressing the questions of How, rather than Why.

The true answers to the Why question of crime are often:

He always hated his mother

or

He just ran out of luck

or

She was as crazy as a couple of dancing mice that night

or

The guy owed him money, so he shot him

or

It was a lovers’ quarrel

or

Yes, he knew the gun was loaded, but he didn’t mean to shoot the store clerk

or

The voice from the toaster told him to do it

or

The police officer took his eyes off the suspect for just a moment

or

“I killed them to prevent any more earthquakes”

or

He hit her once too often

or

The victim said something stupid like, “You can’t do it. Go ahead and shoot!”

or

She hit him with his own car just to scare him

or

His fifth grade teacher always thought he was strange when he talked about assassinating famous people

or

“Gee, I dunno…I guess I was pretty upset.”

or

The victim/suspect was simply one evil SOB.

These after all, are the real answers to the “Why?” question. No amount of careful crime scene measurement, meticulous photography  painstaking evidence collection or Sherlock Holmesian deduction, induction, or reduction can answer the “Why?” question. No reconstruction has yet answered the Why of Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, or John Wayne Gacy, but numerous individuals and agencies have addressed the “What happened?”, and “How did it happen?” questions that surround these cases. (It was perhaps the downfall of those who have tried to reconstruct the Kennedy assassinations that they could never quite divorce the what-happened from the why-did-it-happen.) You can understand the How without knowing the Why. And this is not all bad, because the true reason why a crime occurred is neither very interesting nor very enlightening.

Sixty stab wounds and a shoeprint on the victim’s face may indicate why the killer thought it was necessary to commit the act. The word “PIG” written on the wall in the victims blood may indicate why the killer felt it was time for a murder. The use of meat fork and boning knife and roofing hammer or fifteen groin shots may hint at the true reasons why the crime was committed. These, however conspicuous, are only indicators of why…indicators to be interpreted by attorneys in their closing arguments, juries in their deliberations, and psychological profilers in their analyses.

As a crime scene reconstructionist, your job is not to answer Why the crime occurred. It’s not your problem. Your are employed to examine the evidence and circumstances and, with some knowledgeable and scientific analysis, figure out How the crime transpired. The “Why?” is not your specialty, nor your responsibility. There is an old cop maxim which says that there are two kinds of murder cases: who-done-its? and who-cares? In either type of case, the question of why who done it did it is not something that can be answered by a crime scene reconstruction.

Suggested Readings

1.  Bevel, T., “Crime Scene Reconstruction,” Journal of Forensic Identification, Vol. 41, No. 4, 1991, pp. 248-54.
2.  Osterberg, J. and Ward, R., Criminal Investigation: A Method For Reconstructing The Past, Anderson: Cincinati, 1992.
3.  Rynearson, J. M. and Chisum, W. J., Evidence and Crime Scene Reconstruction, 3rd ed., National Crime Investigation & Training: P.O. Box 492005, Redding, CA 96049, 1993.

Copyright Information