Crime Scene Reconstruction And Analysis

1

CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION AND ANALYSIS

Crime Scene Reconstruction and Analysis Gary A McAvin AKA Gavin

Crime Scene Reconstruction

2

Crime Scene Reconstruction and Analysis Why do we have crime scene reconstruction and analysis? How did criminology originate and develop into the science it has now become? Most important is; who or what will speak for the silenced victim of a brutal homicide? The victim has been silenced and all that remains is their lifeless body. No other humans witnessed this barbarous event except the victim now deceased and;the perpetrator or UNSUB as BAU calls them. Were any indicatorsor evidence left that will lead to the capture and prosecution of the suspect? What can now be done for the victim other than burial? And; how does one go about finding out what exactly happened? By utilizing something called crime scene reconstruction! Whatis by definition crime scene reconstruction and analysis? “The use of scientific methods, physical evidence, deductive and inductive 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. (http://www.acsr.org/) Crime scene reconstruction is more comprehensiveand focused on final problem resolutions than criminal investigative analysis. A foremost forensic analyst and crime scene investigator hasthis to say about reconstruction. “Reconstruction is different from re-enactment, re-creation, and criminal profiling.” (Lee, et. al., 2001: 272) When should reconstruction be undertaken? “Crime-scene reconstruction is of value when reconstruction is started at the scene during the initial phases of the investigation, during the investigation, and during the adjudication process. The reconstruction analyst may determine, while the interviews are being conducted, if the stories being told by the victims, witnesses, and/or suspects are true. By knowing the events as reconstructed, the detectives conducting the interviews may be able to detect deception or

Crime Scene Reconstruction

3

inconsistencies. The use of this knowledge can be a powerful tool in the hands of an experienced investigator.” (Turvey 1999: 78-9) Who set the standards and who were the forerunners of this process that is used to make accurate and determinate analysis? Who provided the pattern observed by the investigators at the scene of today’s homicide setting? The progressive investigative pattern can be seen in procedural steps to be followed at every crime scene. At the crime scene the following steps are followed for each item of evidence: “Recognition, Preservation, Documentation, Collection, Transportation, Identification/classification, Comparison, Individuation, and Interpretation/reconstruction. Traditionally, the specific duties are broken down as follows: Detective/investigator/forensic technician 1. Recognition 2. Preservation Forensic technician (aka crime scene technician) 3. Documentation 4. Collection 5. Transportation Forensic scientist/criminalist 6. Identification/classification 7. Comparison 8. Individuation 9. Interpretation/reconstruction The problem is that these forensic titles and roles are often mixed, misunderstood, or outright confused, sometimes over many generations of professionals in a given system. As a result, forensic job titles abound, with more than one to describe the same set of duties—crime scene investigator, crime scene technician, forensic investigator, evidence technician, forensic technician, laboratory technician, laboratory specialist, forensic specialist, forensic analyst, forensic scientist, criminalist, etc. What is important to remember about titles is that they are administrative and not necessarily suggestive of a particular background, education, training, or

Crime Scene Reconstruction

4

expertise. It is the work that defines the professional. It is education, training, experience, and the quality of work products that define expertise. (Chisum & Turvey 2007: xvi) The aforementioned proceedings and responsibilities clearly define necessary specifics for crime scene investigation. How this is executed is summed up in the last sentence; education, training, experience, and the quality of work. The crime scene should be viewed as a puzzle with each piece of evidence forming a small but integral part of the overall composite, i.e. a mosaic if you will. The crime scene investigator must start with an overall evaluation of the crime scene in question by pausing at the determined point of entry and then scanning the entire crime scene to form an overall picture (crime scene composite) in their mind. And then they should proceed through the crime scene paying particular attention to every bit of relevant evidence at that particular crime scene. This will provide a mental composite to compare the final processed results against. But; are we getting a little ahead of ourselves here? The history of crime reconstruction can teach us many things. Dr. Joseph E. Bell (18371911) impressed upon his students the necessity of astute observation and inference. Paying attention to every detail no matter what, and; always careful to note his surroundings, he could read his patients and students like a book. His influence was noted and extended through one of his students Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Doyle wrote of his teacher and mentor Dr. Bell: “I thought of my teacher Joe Bell, of his eagle face, of his curious ways, of his eerie trick of spotting details. If he were a detective he would surely reduce the fascinating unorganized business [of detective work] to something nearer an exact science. I would try [to see] if I could get this effect. It was surely possible in real life, so why should I not make it plausible in fiction? It is all very well to say that a man is clever, but the reader

Crime Scene Reconstruction

5

wants to see examples of this—such examples as Bell gave us every day in the wards. The idea amused me.” (Chisum & Turvey 2007: 5) This is the same Doyle that gave life to Sherlock Holmes via his novels depicting the ever observant detective. The first mention of criminalistics came from Dr. Hans Gross and he became known as the father of criminalistics from his seminal work, “Handbuch fur Unterschunsrichter als System der Kriminalistik [Criminal Investigation, A Practical Textbook for Magistrates, Police Officers, and Lawyers (Gross, 1906)]. It was a watershed event in which Gross proclaimed the virtues of science against intuition, and a systematic approach to holistic crime reconstruction against uninformed experience and overspecialization. Specifically, Gross wrote on the importance of objectivity and theory falsification when seeking to reconstruct events. “(Ibid: 17) Whereas Dr.’s Bell and Gross were definite forerunners in criminalistics, the first crime laboratory was established by Edmond Locard. It should be specifically noted and categorized in the memory of any and all investigative criminalists;Locard’s Exchange Principle. This principle amplifies one of the most salient points in criminology, and that is “every contact leaves a trace.” I include relevance as to origin and translation of Locard’s seminal hypothesis. “However, Locard is most famous for the forensic axiom that bears his name: Locard’s Exchange Principle. It has been misstated. Misrepresented, and misattributed over the years by those lecturing and writing authoritatively on the subject. Confusion in the forensic science community and among students has resulted. A reference from Locard found in La Police et Les Méthodes Scientifiques, in the original French, may be of use to understand what he actually meant (Locard, 1934, pp. 7—8): A recherche des traces n’est pas, autant qu’on pourrait le croire, une innovation des criminalistes modernes. C’est une occupation probablement aussi vieille que I‘humanité.

Crime Scene Reconstruction

6

Le principe est celui-ci. Toute action de l’homme, et afortiori, l’action violente qu’est un crime, ne peut pas se dérouler sans laisser quelque marque. L’admirable est Ia variété de ces marques. Tantôt cc seront des empreintes, tantôt de simples traces, tantôt des taches. Translation: Searching for traces is not, as much as one could believe it, an innovation of modern criminal jurists. It is an occupation probably as old as humanity. The principle is this one. Any action of an individual, and obviously, the violent action constituting a crime, cannot occur without leaving a mark. What is admirable is the variety of these marks. Sometimes they will be prints, sometimes simple traces, and sometimes stains. In 1935, a Spanish translation of this same general principle was provided in Locard (1935, p. 107): AJ maihechor le es imposible actuar, y sobre todo actuar con la intensidad que supone 1a acción criminal, sin dejars indicios de su paso. Translation: To the criminal, it is impossible for him to act, and mainly to act with the intensity that supposes criminal action, without leaving indications of his step.” (Ibid: 23-24) Can we understand the significance of Locard’s Principle? There is always something left behind regardless of its minutiaeand it is up to the criminalists to find it! The victim can no longer speak about what happened to them, but; the evidence (especially trace evidence) can reveal volumes about what really happened. What questions should be asked of and at any crime scene? Where do we find the precedent and progenitor of this inquiry? The man responsible for asking the right questions concerning crime analysis was, Edward Oscar Heinrich (1881-1953). “Understand this first,” he usually said. “Crime analysis is an orderly procedure. It’s precise and it follows always the same questions. “Precisely what happened? Precisely when did it happen? Precisely where did it happen? Why did it happen? Who did it?” “It’s all like a mosaic, and every

Crime Scene Reconstruction

7

fact must be evaluated before it can be fitted into the pattern. In that way, every fact as it is developed and equated becomes a clue.” (Ibid: 27) And how did it happen was added to the five questions investigators ask of their crime scenes. There are multiple individuals that set the standards for modern crime scene technological processing and evaluation. Each one built upon another’s work until we have an extensive and comprehensive data base of knowledge and applications. There is a caveat to their work however as was found in the “trial of the century” wherein the excellent works of LA’s Scientific Services Bureau Director, Barry A.J. Fisher was used to discredit the prosecution. His own words concerning its use: “During the 0. J. Simpson trial, friends and colleagues from around the United States and beyond called to tell me that the fifth edition of this textbook was being used by the defense team to raise questions about the crime scene procedures used by the police. In a way I was flattered to have become a footnote in the “trial of the century:” however, I was also concerned that some of the statements made in this text were misconstrued and taken out of context. I learned a lesson from this case — there is much more to crime scene investigation than simply proper police investigative techniques and forensic scientific and technical skill. Appearance and perception as well as the ability to communicate effectively to a jury are equally important. I once attended a class at the FBI Academy and still remember the instructor’s advice: “It’s not only important to be sharp; you have to look sharp, as well!” To put it another way, appearances and perception are every bit as important as knowledge, skills, and ability, at least in the eyes of the jury and the public.” (Fisher 2000: Prologue) It is important to see the ingenuity of the criminal element (and their lawyers) capitalizing on the genius of forensic scientists by using their own work to challenge the

Crime Scene Reconstruction

8

evidence against them or their client (s) if they represent the suspect. The criminal element (including their lawyers) is determined to get away with murder. If the Simpson crime scene would have been properly processed by competent criminalists, the case and jury decision would certainly be different than it was. The two victims could not speak, but; the evidence could, but; it was contaminated and became questionable, challenged, and; invalidated! Dr. Paul L. Kirk (1902-1970) says this about evidence. “This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong; it cannot perjure itself; it cannot be wholly absent. Only its interpretation can err” (Chisum & Turvey 2007:28). The evidence if uncontaminated at the crime scene; cannot be in error. Only the human element can cause the evidence to become contaminated and of little or no use whatsoever. Following the thoughts of Dr. Kirk we can determine the following. (Fisher 2000: 1-5) 1. Physical evidence can prove that a crime has been committed and establish the key elements of a crime. 2. Physical evidence can place the suspect in contact with the victim or with the crime scene. 3. Physical can establish the identity of persons associated with the crime. 4. Physical evidence can exonerate the innocent. 5. Physical evidence can corroborate the victim’s testimony. 6. A suspect confronted with physical evidence may make admissions or even confess. 7. Physical evidence is more reliable than eyewitnesses to crimes. (Remember Dr. Kirk’s evaluation on evidence here.) 8. Court decisions have made physical evidence more important. 9. Physical evidence is expected by juries in criminal cases. We can see the value of evidence in any crime investigation and this importance cannot be minimized! The proper procedures must be followed at every crime scene, and;this is of

Crime Scene Reconstruction

9

paramount importance! Each piece of evidence speaks, speaks for the victim, and speaks against the suspect that committed the crime. Each piece of evidence has a voice that must be heard. Not only a voice, but; a small fragment of a picture that when completed; will give the investigative team a complete picture of what exactly happened! It is up to those gathering evidence, including trace, to be careful and diligent in their collection and observations. All investigations must be teamwork oriented. This cannot be the proverbial “micturatingcontest” as to jurisdiction, positions, and the usual problems with inter-departmental agendas. Fisher says this about teamwork: “The final element in crime scene investigation is teamwork. The full investigation of criminal acts involves scores of people who often work for different organizations. This system was purposefully designed so that no one person or entity can operate independently. As such, there will always be “turf” issues that arise — “This is my responsibility, you’re not supposed to do that.” In addition, as we move to larger and more complex criminal justice systems, we are more likely to be dealing with people who are faceless voices at the other end of the telephone. For complex systems to work, teamwork is of the utmost importance. Each element of the criminal investigation — the uniformed officer, the detective, the crime scene specialist, the forensic scientist, the coroner, the forensic pathologist, the photographer, the prosecutor, and all the other vital players in the “system” — have to work cooperatively to make the entire process work. No one element or person is more important than any other person or element. Each person has a vital role to play and each element must be accomplished in a responsible, professional and timely manner to make every component function properly.” (Fischer 2000: 20) "For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for the want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for the want of a horse the rider was lost, being overtaken and slain by the enemy, all for the want of care about a horseshoe nail." -- Benjamin Franklin Pay attention to detail! [Emphasis Mine] A case can be either won or lost at the crime scene. You usually only have one opportunity to process the crime scene without contamination. If it rains, the evidence can be washed away. If the crime scene is exposed to the regular human element on a daily basis, the evidence will be trampled and become useless. The process must be right the first time. Rarely

Crime Scene Reconstruction

10

are there go backs or; do over’s! Usually the first responder or the first officer at the scene is confronted with a dynamic rapidly changing environment and attention to detail must be their primary concern. Their subsequent actions may be the determining factor in that particular case. This role, position, cannot be minimized, and; training for this eventuality must be a departmental prerequisite. Preparation cannot be understated! At every crime scene there is evidence that must be preserved for the investigative team. First responder must take extensive measures to ensure that this does happen. Remembering Locard’s Exchange Principle that evidence no matter how minute,has been left by the criminal. And; it is first responder’s duty to preserve this evidence for forensics. First responder will follow departmental protocol until relieved of position by Investigative Detective or higher ranking officer responding to scene. One of the problems encountered by crime scene investigators can be found in what is called the “CSI Effect.” Do television CSI type programs correctly portray actualizations or; can these events be glorified and somewhat inaccurate for glamorization effect? [Lengthy quote now included for relevance to subject matter.] “Forensic fraud and forensic incompetence may only intensify in the future in response to the so-called “CSI effect.” This is a “phenomenon in which actual investigations are driven by the expectations of the millions of people who watch fake whodunits on TV. It has contributed to jurors’ desire to see more forensic testimony from the stand.” (Hempel, 2003, p. 13) In a Nielsen’s rating poll, seven of the top 20 TV shows were premised on forensic investigations and courtroom dramas, meaning that more than 120 million viewers, many of whom are prospective jurors in criminal cases, watch these shows each week (Salmon and O’Brien, 2005). Regrettably, Hollywood’s

Crime Scene Reconstruction

11

portrayal of forensic science is far from accurate, as these “shows tend to embellish and exaggerate the science, ignore actual time lines for testing and raise expectations of the general public, law enforcement, and judicial system to an extremely absurd and totally unrealistic level” (Wecht, 2003, p. D03). The CSI effect may exacerbate the forensic fraud problem in two respects. First, according to many prosecutors, the CSI effect has raised their burden of proof to such an extent that it is “killing” legitimate prosecutions (Terrence Farley, a prosecutor in Ocean County, New Jersey, as quoted in Coscarelli, 2005). For instance, the Delaware Supreme Court held that a trial judge abused his discretion when he failed to reprimand a prosecutor who complained to a jury that the standard for guilt was no longer “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The prosecutor argued that the new standard is “the TV expectation that [criminal defendants) hope folks like you want. Can they meet ‘C.S.I.’? If they don’t have fingerprints, he can’t be guilty. On TV, they would have found fingerprints. But this isn’t TV, this is real life” (Boatswain v. State, 2005 Del. LEXIS 168 at *3; the error was ruled harmless because “the evidence introduced at trial produced overwhelming proof of guilt”)” (Fisher 2000: 517-18). It appears that imitations to reality sometimes can prove detrimental to actual crime scene investigations. However; in the midst of all of this arise programs, sans CSI, that can assist in courtroom presentations. Computerized Crime Mapping can present a very detailed presentation of what was found at the scene, what evidence revealed, and place everything in proper viewing order. As the jurists most likely view television as aneveryday habit i.e. news and programs of interest, the computerized presentation would be acceptable and understandable from their jurist’s position and perspectives. Another aid to presentation can be found in modeling the

Crime Scene Reconstruction

12

crime scene. By placing the model before the jury and explaining each element of the crime, the jury drawstheir own conclusion as to actual events via presentation by the DA’s prosecutorial team. One picture is worth a thousand words, so they say. Crime scene reconstruction via either one of these presentations can have an effect towards convicting the suspect if the evidence is conclusive, and; if the evidence is properly presented, of course! Every crime scene is different, even if the crime is perpetrated by the same serial killer. The killer makes adjustments from the previous crime as they continue to learn from each crime they commit. Perhaps the investigator thinks that crime scenes are always the same. But; there are subtle differences at each crime scene, and; off times the evidence is hidden from view! Each crime scene is different! As the criminal and their MO”s or signatures are becoming more complex and harder to discern, science has also become more complex and more sophisticated in evidence discovery. “Modern crime and medical examiner/coroner laboratories use a vast array of scientific specialties to exonerate the innocent and send murderers, rapists, burglars, and swindlers to jail. Bones tell stories of identity, trauma, and postmortem mutilation. The forensic anthropologist reads them. The odontologist analyzes teeth and the marks they make. People constantly exchange bits of themselves with their surroundings. The trace evidence specialist studies hairs, fibers, pollen, paint, soil, and glass to determine who was present at a crime scene. The ballistics expert looks at tools and weapons. The biologist analyzes blood, saliva, and semen to tie perpetrators to victims or locations” (Owen 2000: 8). Even the minutest of trace evidence is discernable under the new techniques and microscopes nowutilized by forensics. Even cases of other eras can be solved using modern

Crime Scene Reconstruction

13

forensic technology. Arsenic remains in the bones and almost every part of the body, long after the individual has died. One of the major accomplishments for forensic science was the discovery of hiddentrace evidence in the Pan Am Flight 103 destruction. The airliner was disintegrated by the explosion. The crime scene was comprised of almost 1,000 square miles. But! The following is detailed in its presentation: “The fact that the airplane victims were found to have suffered lung damage from violent decompression suggested that some catastrophic failure had made the aircraft disintegrate in the air. In order to establish the sequence of events leading to the disaster, investigators needed to collect as much of the wreckage as possible even though the debris was widely scattered. Fragments had drifted in two trails of wreckage covering an area of almost a thousand square miles of northern England and part of Scotland. Nevertheless more than four million pieces were traced. Eventually over ninety percent of the airplane's structure was recovered and used to reconstruct the plane in a huge hangar at a former army ammunition store.” (Ward 2000: 140) Four million pieces of evidence gathered from approximately 1,000 square miles, and over ninety percent of the airlines structure was gathered! Evidence suggested that an explosion had taken place! Eventually investigators found a tiny piece of circuit board and this then leads them to conclude that a Toshiba radio cassette player was used as the detonation device that destroyed Pan Am Flight 103. This evidence coupled with the forensic analysis and crime scene reconstruction led investigators to the people responsible for this atrocity that killed 259 people on the plane and 11 on the ground. Using a detailed three dimensional reconstruction process led them to the part of the fuselage that held the bomb. This then led them to the container that held

Crime Scene Reconstruction

14

the baggage with the bomb. Further investigation revealed the baggage was loaded onto the 747 at Frankfort, Germany, and now the conclusion of Pan Am Flight 103 forensically speaking: “Forensic specialists found garment fibers in the fragments of the case. These were traced to clothes bought in Malta and flown to Frankfurt on the day of the crash. Investigations on Malta traced the purchase of the clothes to a Libyan who did not actually board the flight to London, though the baggage containing the clothes was accepted.” (Owen2000: 142) The crime scene reconstruction and analysis eventually led investigators to the people responsible for this terrible crime. Conclusion: Every crime scene contains evidence, every crime scene can and will follow Locard’s Exchange Principle, “every contact leaves a trace.” If the crime scene investigator (s) and their team are diligent, evidence will be recovered that will eventually lead to the capture and conviction of the criminal (s) responsible. The diligent crime scene processing team will follow established protocol and respond accordingly. Examples of irresponsible crime scene processing, (like the O.J.Simpson crime scene) haunt investigators to this day. John Douglas and Mark Olshaker in their book “The Cases That Haunt Us”, make a determination concerning the Jon Benet Ramsey crime scene, that it was not handled and processed correctly. Thus; the perpetrator has yet to be discovered. John Douglas has determined that the Ramsey’s are telling the truth! “After I had spent about two hours with Ramsey, he excused himself to go to the rest room. I turned to Bryan Morgan, who’d been in the room the entire time, and said simply, “I believe him… I gave them my analysis thus far and why I believed the Ramsey’s’ stories” (Douglas & Olshaker 2000). So; after all of this, thiscrime remains unsolved. However; if the

Crime Scene Reconstruction

15

crime scene was processed (reconstructed) correctly, there would probably be different results, and; a suspect would have been determined and apprehended. The victim can no longer speak, but; the evidence left behind containsa voice of what happened to them. It is up to the investigators and the forensic team to hear that voice and respond with investigative results that form a composite pointing towards the perpetrator (s) of that particular crime.

Crime Scene Reconstruction

*Written for Criminal Justice

16

Crime Scene Reconstruction

17

References Chisum, & Turvey, Brent E. Crime Reconstruction (1st ed., Vol. 1). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. (Original work published 2007) Douglas, John & Olshaker, Mark. (2000). The Cases That Haunt Us (1st ed., Vol. 1). New York: Simon & Schuster. (Original work published 2000) Fisher. (2004). Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation (7th ed., Vol. 1). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Lee, Palmbach, Timothy., & Miller, Marilyn T. (2001). Henry Lee's Crime Scene Handbook (2nd ed., Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press. Owen, David. (2000). Hidden Evidence (1st ed., Vol. 1). Buffalo, NY: Firefly Books (USA) Inc. (Original work published 2000) Turvey, Brent. (1999). Criminal Profiling An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis (1st ed., Vol. 1). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. (Original work published 1999)