A Case Study: The Murder of Donna Lynn Vetter
Donna Lynn Vetter was a 22-year old, white female. She worked as a stenographer for the FBI field office in San Antonio, Texas. On September 4, 1986, she was raped and murdered in her apartment. Ms. Vetter was last seen alive at 9:10PM, by a neighbor. She was found dead at 10:35PM; this places the occurrence of the offense to within a period of just over one hour. During this time the following events took place:
- Offender enters the apartment by pulling out the screen on the otherwise unsecured front window, knocking over a plant on his way in.
- Offender unplugs the telephone.
- Initial contact between the offender and the victim occurs near the bathroom. Victim is struck in the face.
- Assault continues in the kitchen area where the offender obtains a knife. The victim is stabbed repeatedly and her clothing cut and/or torn off.
- Offender drags the victim from the kitchen, through the dining room into the living room, leaving a blood trail along the way.
- Offender sexually assaults the victim in the living room.
- Offender hides the knife under a seat cushion in the living room.
- Offender leaves the scene.
The reconstruction in this case uses information from Blood Stain Pattern Analysis (blood stains near bathroom and in kitchen, blood trail), Relational/Positional evidence (location and condition of the victim’s clothing), and Pathology (number and nature of wounds, evidence of sexual assault). Each segment of the event is reconstructed separately, using the appropriate evidence, and then the segments are placed in sequence. The reconstruction clearly defines what happened during the commission of the crime. Based on this, it is apparent that the offender’s original intent was to rape the victim, not to commit murder. This is indicated by:
- Unplugging the telephone (which is unnecessary if he intends to kill the victim).
- Blitz type assault intended to render the victim compliant.
- Use of a weapon of opportunity (i.e. the kitchen knife), rather than one brought to the scene by the offender.
- The fact that nothing was stolen from the apartment.
In this case the victim’s continuing resistance led to an escalation of violence and ultimately to her death. When combined with the victimology and geoforensic information, the reconstruction allowed a thorough profile of the offender to be completed. 41,42
Conclusion: The Importance of Competent Crime Scene Work in Reconstruction and Profiling
Unless the analyst (reconstructionist or profiler) is one of the scene investigators, the basic scene work will likely already be completed, and any deficiencies will probably be impossible to correct. This may limit the information which the analyst can provide. To this end the need for continuing/advanced training for scene investigators cannot be overstated. While much of the evidence used for reconstruction speaks for itself and can be documented and collected using standard crime scene procedures, some types of reconstruction require specialized information.
The main three types would be Blood Stain Pattern, Traffic Accident, and Trajectory Reconstruction. All three types require specialized knowledge of what evidence to look for at the scene, and what documentation (photographs, measurements, etc.) are required to utilize the evidence in reconstruction.
An investigator at a traffic accident must know the difference between skid and yaw marks, for example. He must be able to document that the mark is a yaw rather than a skid, and know that each mark must be measured differently. Measurement of the length of a yaw mark is not much use in reconstruction.
Similarly a photograph of a bullet hole does not allow for trajectory reconstruction. We must know the position, height and angle at least, and knowledge of the direction is helpful.
A great deal of specialized knowledge is required for the proper interpretation of blood stain patterns. Without this knowledge the investigator may not even know what he needs to document, let alone how to do it.
Without competent, thorough scene work, the subsequent analysis may be incomplete or impossible.
References:
1. Bevel, T., “Crime Scene Reconstruction,” Journal of Forensic Identification, 41(4), 1991, pp. 248-54.
2. Garrison, D. H., “Shooting Reconstruction vs. Shooting Reenactment,” AFTE Journal, 25(2), April 1993, pp. 125-27.
3. Lee, H., Crime Scene Investigation, Central Police University Press: Taiwan, 1994, pp. 191-205.
4. Garrison, D. H., “Why Crime Scene Reconstruction Does Not Answer the Why? Question,” MAFS Newsletter, April 1996, pp. 54-56.
5. Garrison, D. H., “Shooting Reconstruction,” pp. 125-27.
6. Garrison, D. H., “Why,” pp. 54-56.
7. Turvey, B., “CP101: An Introduction to Criminal Profiling”, Online Course, http://www.corpus-delicti.com, May 1997.
8. Garrison, D. H., “Why,” pp. 54-56.
9. DeForest, P., Gaensslen, R., Lee, H., Forensic Science: An Introduction to Criminalistics, McGraw Hill: New York, 1983, p. 45.
10. Lee, H., Crime Scene Investigation, pp. 191-205.
11. DeForest, P., Gaensslen, R., Lee, H., Forensic Science, p. 295.
12. Garrison, D. H., “Shooting Reconstruction,” pp. 125-27.
13. Lee, H., Crime Scene Investigation, p. 192.
14. Turvey, B., “A Guide To The Physical Analysis Of Ligature Patterns In Homicide Investigations,” Online Article, http://www.corpus-delicti.com, May 1997.
15. Garrison, D. H., “Shooting Reconstruction,” pp. 125-27.
16. DeForest, P., Gaensslen, R., Lee, H., Forensic Science, p. 45.
17. Ibid., pp. 295-308.
18. Osterberg, J. and Ward, R., Criminal Investigation: a method for reconstructing the past, Second Edition, Anderson: Cincinnati, 1997.pp 84-89
19. Ibid., pp. 98-9.
20. Lee, H., Crime Scene Investigation, p. 193.
21. DeForest, P., Gaensslen, R., Lee, H., Forensic Science, pp. 310-19.
22. Osterberg, J. and Ward, R., Criminal Investigation, pp. 77-84.
23. Bevel, T., “Crime Scene Reconstruction,” p.253.
24. DeForest, P., Gaensslen, R., Lee, H., Forensic Science, pp. 308-311.
25. Osterberg, J. and Ward, R., Criminal Investigation, pp. 99-105.
26. Turvey, B., “A Guide To The Physical Analysis Of Ligature Patterns In Homicide Investigations,” Online Article, http://www.corpus-delicti.com, May 1997.
27. Osterberg, J. and Ward, R., Criminal Investigation, pp. 57-8.
28. DeForest, P., Gaensslen, R., Lee, H., Forensic Science, pp. 51-52.
29. Bevel, T., “Crime Scene Reconstruction,” p.253.
30. Petraco, N., DeForest, P., “Trajectory Reconstructions I: Trace Evidence in Flight,” Journal of Forensic Sciences, JFSCA, 35(6), Nov. 1990, pp. 1284-1296.
31. Osterberg, J. and Ward, R., Criminal Investigation, pp. 102-106.
32. Lee, H., Crime Scene Investigation, p. 198.
33. Ibid., pp. 198-201.
34. Bevel, T. and Gardner, R.M., Bloodstain Pattern Analysis: With an Introduction to Crime Scene Reconstruction, CRC Press, New York, 1997, p. 22.
35. Lee, H., Crime Scene Investigation, p. 194.
36. Garrison, D. H., “Why,” pp. 54-56.
37. Garrison, D. H., “Intent Behind the Bullet,” Online Article, http://members.aol.com/identtec/intent.txt, May 1997.
38. Bevel, T., “Crime Scene Reconstruction,” p.249.
39. Bevel, T. and Gardner, R.M., Bloodstain Pattern Analysis, p. 20.
40. Turvey, B., “CP101: An Introduction to Criminal Profiling”, Online Course, http://www.corpus-delicti.com, May 1997.
41. Douglas, J., et al., Crime Classification Manual, Lexington Books, New York, 1992, pp. 134-136.
42. Douglas, J., MindHunter: Inside the FBI’s Elite Serial Crime Unit, Scribner, New York, 1995, pp. 275-279.