Knox is free – So who did kill Meredith. Was it Rudy Guede and is that conviction safe?

There will be a million dollar book and film deal and Amanda Knox will start becoming an international figurehead for the injustices brought about by her incarceration in an Italian jail for four years. But this is really an injustice to the family of, and the victim herself, Meredith Kercher.

What can they do now? They have put their faith in a justice system that was shown for a number of reasons to be wrong. Can they be sure the case against Rudy Guede is secure? Why were two different versions of the case even brought to trial? That alone is very very strange and should have flagged some warnings to the Police conducting the enquiry.

If Rudy was convicted why was Knox not released then? Was there a review of the case at that time? there should have been because two people were convicted in one case with one timeline and then another was convicted using another time line…

Below are ten factors that helped Knox win her appeal case (thanks to the BBC).

10 factors that helped Knox’s case

Amanda Knox cries in Perugia's courtroom
Crying Amanda Knox was rushed from the courtroom after the verdict

Investigative journalist Graham Johnson, co-author of Darkness Descending: The Murder of Meredith Kercher, outlines 10 factors that helped Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito win their appeal.

1. Reasonable doubt

Amanda Knox’s lawyers managed to instil reasonable doubt in the jurors’ minds over the quality of testing of the bra clasp belonging to Meredith Kercher – which it was claimed had Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA on it – and the knife that prosecutors argued was the murder weapon. The prosecution maintained Knox’s DNA was on the handle of the kitchen knife, with Ms Kercher’s DNA on the blade. The defence claimed that the amount of Meredith Kercher’s DNA on the blade was too small to test. An independent review disputed the prosecution’s claims.

2. Crime scene errors

A few police crime scene errors, such as contaminated samples, lost evidence and disputed procedures, were successfully portrayed as generalised incompetence. An independent review raised doubt over the attribution of some of the DNA traces, which were collected from the crime scene 46 days after the murder.

3. Lack of proof

There was no convincing proof that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were actually in the room when Meredith Kercher died. Even the presence of Amanda Knox’s blood and footprints in the house were successfully explained away. Her defence claimed that Knox’s blood could have been there because she was a resident at the farm house on Pergola Road. The evidence of Rudy Guede against Knox was also confusing. Guede, who is serving a prison sentence for sexual assault and murder, said that he heard her voice at the scene but didn’t see her face.

4. Motive

There was no credible motive for the murder. The prosecution stuck doggedly to the sex-game-gone-wrong explanation even though their own medical examiner said there was no evidence of rape in the days following the murder. An alternative motive, involving robbery, gained traction as the case rolled on, based on the unexplained disappearance of Meredith Kercher’s 200 euro rent money.

5. Unreliable witness

One of the key witnesses at the original trial, a homeless man called Antonio Curatolo, publicly admitted to being a heroin addict, undermining his observations that he saw Knox acting suspiciously by the scene of the crime on the night of the murder in November 2007.

6. Character

Knox claimed that some of the evidence put forward against her – stories about her strange behaviour after she was arrested and the prosecution’s focus on her sexuality – was no more than an attempt to demonise her to cover up for a weak case.

7. PR campaign

Knox’s family hired a Seattle public relations specialist, David Marriot, who for months repeatedly plugged the line: “Amanda will get out, it’s a done deal.” This created a self-propagating media frenzy, which – in the end – helped convince a largely sceptical Italian media.

8. Supporters’ presence

The massive presence of friends and family in Perugia in support fuelled the “Amanda is innocent” campaign. Italians have claimed that because Knox is American, the case has been handled differently, so as not to offend the US.

9. Appeals process

The Italian appeals process offers more guarantees to defendants than any other legal system in the world, whereby only the weakest evidence is treated, not the whole case. Knox’s team only had to attack the DNA evidence against her to undermine the whole edifice of the original trial. Italy has one of lowest prison populations in the world because of its lenient appeals process.

10. Favourable political climate

Silvio Berlusconi’s government vowed to tame his country’s fiercely independent system of magistrates – one that had been bolstered to fight the mafia. The more the government shows the magistracy to be incompetent the better for Mr Berlusconi. The ministry of justice is poised to investigate what went wrong.

 

Kercher house
Original Post [BBC]

DNA tests to identify homeless man!!!

Skulls on a Beach: "Currents carry many d...

Image via Wikipedia

Trinidad - A pathologist from the Forensic Science Centre is expected to do DNA tests on the skeleton which was found scattered inside a storeroom of an abandoned Princes Town gas station on Saturday. Crimefighters, led by Sgt Don Gajadhar, are expected to go to the Forensic Science Centre this morning, where attempts will be made to extract samples from the bones to do DNA tests. Officers also said that attempts will also be made to identify the remains using dental records.

Investigators believe the man may have died more than a year ago. However, detectives said it was unclear whether the remains were dumped inside the gas station, or whether the man had died inside the room. The building where the remains were found, has been unoccupied for years. It was once used by employees of Moonan’s Gas Station, to house tyres and other supplies. On Saturday around 6 am, iguana hunter Lennox Charles said he was chasing lizards close to the dilapidated structure when he saw the bones. The skull had a tooth on the upper left side, and another tooth on bottom jaw of the right side. A greyish, blue-beaded necklace was found close to the skull.

Investigators said the man might have been a street dweller. Other street dwellers, however, told police that they were not missing any of their friends and they had no idea who the bones belonged to. Officers said they were forced to break down some burglar-proofing to gain access to the room. The remains were viewed by a District Medical Officer who ordered them removed to the Forensic Science Centre. Investigations are continuing.

Now what a waste of money this will be! Unless the Police and Forensic Science Centre have a comparison sample of “Missing Homeless Man” they are not going to achieve anything at all other than wasting money they claim they don’t have in the first place!

And I have to laugh at the news reporters use of “Crimefighters” What a laugh!!!

By the way this is reported in the Trinidad Guardian Newspaper here

11.3 murders per 1 million people, unlike the Caribbean…

England and Wales (red), with the rest of the ...

Image via Wikipedia

But the murder rate is still too much.

What makes the difference between the UK and the Caribbean (and the US, Canada etc) is the CONVICTION rate of the offenders.

How can you use hanging as a deterant if you can not convict the buggers in the first place.

And should you hang someone if there are any doubts whatsoever that he (or she) did it? You should use ALL the tools at your disposal, such as DNA, Fingerprint together with eye witness and electronic evidence.

Convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent!

Murder rate: the trends that solve the crimes

619 murders were recorded in England and Wales in 2009/10, see the stats that help to solve crimes

• Get the data

Statistics on homicide are vitally important as they aid investigations into hard-to-solve and unsolved murders.
Given the characteristics of the victim and the offence, the statistics can help police narrow down a suspect group in the hunt for a murderer.

The Home Office publish an extensive “Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence ” report.

The data in this report describes the recorded crimes in England and Wales over the past 50 years.

The Home Office figures tell us that last year 619 deaths were recorded as homicide in England and Wales.

As Simon Rogers previously posted the mortality statistics, we can see that 318 deaths were caused by assault. That accounts for about half of murders in 2009.

Now what extra detail does the homicide report show?

  • Two-thirds of homicide victims (68%) were male.
  • Female victims were more likely to be killed by someone they knew. Around three-quarters of female victims knew the main suspect, compared with half (50%) of male victims.
  • Just over half of female victims aged 16 or over had been killed by their partner, ex-partner or lover (54%, 94 offences)
  • The most common method of killing for both male and females continues to be by sharp instrument. In 2009/10, as in each of the last eight years, male and female victims were both more likely to be killed by a sharp instrument than any other method.
  • The second most common method for male murders involves hitting or kicking (113 homicides, or 27%)
  • The second most common method for females murder was strangulation or asphyxiation (41 homicides, or 21%).
  • There were 41 shooting homicide victims in 2009/10.
  • In terms of reoffender rates, two homicide offences recorded in 2009/10 were committed by a suspect who had been convicted of a homicide on a
    previous occasion.

Below is more detailed regional breakdown of murders by police force area.

Data summary

Homicides England and Wales

Police force area
Number of
recorded homicide
in 2005/06
Number of
recorded homicide
in 2009/10
Offences per
million of
population 2009/10
Cleveland 5 6 10.7
Durham 8 10 16.5
Northumbria 16 14 9.9
North East Region 29 30 11.6
Cheshire 14 8 8
Cumbria 2 - 0
Gtr Manchester 50 35 13.5
Lancashire 12 26 18
Merseyside 26 21 15.5
North West Region 104 90 13
Humberside 10 13 14.2
North Yorkshire 4 6 7.5
South Yorkshire 21 12 9.1
West Yorkshire 33 32 14.4
Yorkshire and the Humber Region 68 63 12
Derbyshire 6 2 2
Leicestershire 6 13 13.2
Lincolnshire 4 6 8.6
Northamptonshire 10 5 7.3
Nottinghamshire 14 15 13.9
East Midlands Region 40 41 9.2
Staffordshire 10 13 12.2
Warwickshire 8 11 20.6
West Mercia 5 15 12.6
West Midlands 49 27 10.2
West Midlands Region 72 66 12.2
Bedfordshire 9 6 9.9
Cambridgeshire 10 8 10.3
Essex 20 10 5.8
Hertfordshire 9 6 5.5
Norfolk 11 7 8.2
Suffolk 5 10 14
East of England Region 64 47 8.2
City of London3 2 2 ..
Metropolitan 168 120 15.5
London Region 170 122 15.7
Hampshire 9 19 10.2
Kent 15 16 9.6
Surrey 10 8 7.2
Sussex 13 13 8.3
Thames Valley 19 14 6.3
South East Reqion 66 70 8.3
Avon and Somerset 9 16 10
Devon and Cornwall 12 16 9.6
Dorset 2 5 7
Gloucestershire 2 4 6.8
Wiltshire 7 4 6.1
South West Region 32 45 8.6
Dyfed-Powys 3 2 4
Gwent 4 18 32.1
North Wales 6 7 10.3
South Wales 9 16 12.8
Wales 22 43 14.3
British Transport Police4 42 2 *
ENGLAND AND WALES 709 619 11.3

Download the data

• DATA: download the full spreadsheet

The BlackBerry Messenger Forensics Network

Have you got a BlackBerry? Are you involved in scientific support or crime scene investigation in your part of the world?

Scan this barcode to join a BlackBerry Messenger group exclusively for personnel involved in the field of forensics.

Somewhere we can all talk in private security either at home or at a scene, if you need help, advice or just want a chat.

Learn how Crime Scene Staff work in different countries and join them in their everyday lives.

At no cost, all you need is a BlackBerry phone on a BIS or BES with access to the BlackBerry Messenger Service.

Proof of your involvement in the field of forensics will be required when you join.

CSI proves Dr Crippen was innocent.

Scar tissue used in evidence at the trial, all...

Image via Wikipedia

DNA tests reveal remains in the cellar ‘were not his wife’

Modern CSI methods have been used to prove Dr Hawley Crippen – who gained a reputation as one of the most notorious murderers in British history – did not kill his wife.

The breakthrough comes more than 100 years after he was hanged for allegedly poisoning Cora.

Now scientists say DNA tests show the remains found at the couple’s home were not hers.

Police investigating the disappearance of Mrs Crippen had discovered a headless corpse in the coal cellar of her Holloway home.

Dr Crippen had already fled with his secretary Ethel Le Neve, and they were on a ship travelling to Canada when they were recognised by the captain.

A piece of flesh featured a scar similar to one Mrs Crippen had on her torso and a jury took less than half an hour to sentence the homeopath to death.

But now scientists at the University of Michigan claim the remains were actually male, the Sunday Express reported.

Read the rest of this article here

Fingerprint or DNA evidence – the choice in the 21st century

I was at a launch of a new social development company on Monday morning which had about eight speakers and the guest of honour as well.

One of the speakers was an old colleague of mine from the Police here in Trinidad.

During his speech where he went on to commend the community and main players with this initiative (which is only right) he also stated in no uncertain terms that fingerprints were the only positive identifiers of a suspect. As you can imagine I felt all eyes fall suddenly on me.

Well lets look at it…

Fingerprints – each and every person has fingerprints. No one person has the same fingerprints as the next person. Even twin siblings have different fingerprints. Yep that’s right, twin brothers or sisters have different fingerprints (different from DNA as you will see).

DNA – There is much speculation regarding the usefulness of DNA in the fight against crime. In my view it is a very valuable tool, but that is all it is (as are fingerprint examinations), a tool. It IS possible for two people to have the same DNA but most of the time the chance of someone having that same strain of DNA is set about one in one billion people.  And as there are only six billion people on the planet the chances of them being at that crime scene are remote (although not impossible).

As I have already said, twin siblings share the same DNA. It is a mix of the DNA from both the mother and the father. Brothers and sisters who are not twins are unlikely to share the same DNA because they were conceived at different times and the genetic makeup of the parents does change (as it does in us all).

So why am I dismayed at this particular comment? Well, this man has moved through the police service but was heavily involved in the crime scene department before the courses started being taught at the Specialist Crime Academy. It was called the Fingerprint department before these courses were run because that is all that was concentrated on. But what this man fails to realise is that for every fingerprint you find, you may not get a mark good enough to identify. That mark would then be confined to the bin and never considered for anything further. BUT he now knows, because we taught him and his fellow officers, that DNA can also be recovered from the same mark. So if he has failed to get identification with his comparison of a fingerprint he may still get a match from the DNA found in that fingerprint.

That DNA will be reported on that it has the likelihood of being repeated once in one billion (1 in 1 billion) people. Keep in mind that a person playing the UK lottery has approximately a 1 in 14 million chance of getting the six number jackpot, the chances of your DNA “brother” being at that scene are very remote.

Is that not a better way to look at it? Using a multi-disciplined approach will enable all parties to ensure the right man is caught and prosecuted for his crimes, and ultimately pays the penalty which can be very severe.

Another part of this argument is that fingerprints are fact. They are on your hands and are often left at scenes of crime (not yours I hope).

An expert has to report his / her findings on fingerprints. The comparison and interpretation of fingerprints is NOT fact.

So what happens when you have an individual who has been trained as a so-called expert but is in reality not very good at his job? The only people who will know he is rubbish are his co-workers who often will not say anything because they are either junior to him, scared of him or just plain lazy themselves. BUT when this person stands up in a court of law and declares “This is “His” fingerprint because I am the expert and I say it is!”

Then the fact of a fingerprint is based on opinion.

Opinion of a man who wants to further his career, who wants to ensure he keeps his job, who needs to show the public that the police are putting criminals away… all based on his opinion.

DNA is based on irrefutable scientific fact (as it stands today). Fingerprints are fact but the reporting in court is subjected to the human equation which we all know can become distorted or even corrupted and twisted.

In a case involving DNA the court is told of the facts and probable estimates of that DNA recurring in the population. In fingerprint cases they are told “That IS his fingerprints”, because that person reporting says it is.

It is possible to show the fingerprints on a screen, side by side each other, but you can also do the same with DNA profiles. Each still need to be explained to the court….

Both disciplines need to co-exist side by side. Each is not really 100% fool-proof is it?  And with life and death hanging on this thread as it does in so many countries such as the USA should we not take every opportunity to ensure we have the right person for the crime?

Let me know what you think of this in the comments.

 

“There’s been a murder TriniCSI!”

CRIME SCENE DO NOT CROSS / @CSI?cafe

Image via Wikipedia

Picture the scene, a lady looking up from reading her book where she sees the suspect, leaning over the corpse, dead, with his neck ripped open as if some kind of beast has attacked.

The suspect makes no moves to neither escape nor shy away, the defence is simple, “I found him like this”.

Who did it?

Is it really as clear cut as it should be?

This is another interesting day in Trinidad for the TriniCSI…

The scene was cordoned off with crime scene tape and the suspect was arrested and placed in confinement until the guilt could be proved.

“OK what are we looking at here?” said the SIO (Senior Investigating Officer).

Male dark complexion, very hairy has what appears to be his throat ripped out [Aren’t you glad I didn’t get the pictures for you?]. Suspect stood over the body but protests her innocence.

A canvas is called to look for eye witnesses, a lady by the name of Ellie stands out from the crow, “Yes I say her looking over the body”, she says, pointing to the young lady as she is led away..

OK, what did you see…?

As it turns out as with a lot of eye witnesses, during interview Miss Ellie didn’t see quite as much as she thought, and the murder is unsolved.

Crime scene investigators are called in to search the suspect (who is a crime scene), the body (another scene), the area the body was found (a crime scene) and an area near the body where it looks like the incident may have occurred. What draws that conclusion? The ground is messed up, indentations on the grass and what appears to be body parts scattered around. This is one messy murder.

OK the victim is dead. No need for a doctor to tell us that but we should check to be sure. Doctor Tatty please come and see, enter the scene this way please in your nice crime scene suit. Contamination… Don’t bring anything into the scene or take anything out…

“What’s your details please Doc?” asks the copper on the cordon. Hey? Yes everyone is logged in and out so we can keep command and control, time is also logged, in and out.

OK the doc is out and he is dead. Take him away, the Crime Scene Investigators (CSI’s) bag him up and ensure the bag is secured against cross contamination in a new bag and with security seals.

OK get him out of here…

Right after all of that what have we got?

One suspect, one eye witness, one body and not a lot else…

Suddenly Doris the copper is startled when the suspect started to be sick.

Wait, what’s that coming out? More bits of the body? Oh Bubbles, we will have to clean you up too now…

The suspect is Bubbles the Dog and the victim in this case is Sammy, the squirrel from the trees in our garden, but it just goes to show how easy it can be to apply basic crime scene principles into an investigation to aid you.

Here is bubbles at the scene during the reconstruction (victim has been removed)

Collecting and Preserving Trace Evidence at a Crime Scene [Locard's Exchange Principle]

Interview d'Henri Locard

Dr Edmund Locard Image by blogtrotters via Flickr

Dr. Edmond Locard (1877–1966) was a pioneer in forensic science who became known as the Sherlock Holmes of France. He formulated the basic principle of forensic science: “Every contact leaves a trace“. This became known as Locard’s exchange principle.

Locard studied medicine and law at Lyon, eventually becoming the assistant of Alexandre Lacassagne, a criminologist and professor. He held this post until 1910, when he began the foundation of his criminal laboratory.

He produced a monumental, seven-volume work, Traité de Criminalistique, and in 1918, developed 12 matching points for fingerprint identification. He continued with his research until his death in 1966.

In 1910 Locard succeeded in persuading the Lyons Police Department to give him two attic rooms and two assistants, to start what became the first police laboratory. He was a pioneer.

The young Georges Simenon, later to become a well-known detective writer, is known to have attended some Locard lectures in 1919 or 1920.

Locard’s Exchange Principle states that with contact between two items, there will always be an exchange. This is the basis of trace evidence collection at a crime scene.

Trace evidence is material found at a crime or accident scene in small (maybe almost invisible) but measurable amounts. Trace evidence is critically important as it can definitively link an individual or object to the crime or accident scene. [From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia].

Trace Evidence Can Help Solve the Case

Read more of this post

Forensic Artistry – Design in the Crime…

Skulls on a Beach: "Currents carry many d...

Image via Wikipedia

OK here is a newer forensic field which you may not of heard about before.

Forensic Artistry – Using skills as an artist to re-create the features of a person or to enhance images to show that person older than what the original image shows…

Confused?

Try this………

 

Age progressions….

That’s all I could think of when I saw these pictures I’m about to point you to.  Imagine you are asked to do an age progession, and they only want to add 2-3 years to the person (usually we’re talking a fugitive age progressionhere.)  Age progressing a kid a couple years is one thing, there are definite changes depending on what age you are starting from.  But in an adult? Not much to do, unless you have  a great lead or something…maybe massive weight gain or loss,  they know somebody got a nosejob  (not likely, but still….) or changed their hair, or grew a beard. So imagine you got sent this picture, and you were told you age progress her 3 years. What would you do?
Courtesy: Multnomah County Sheriff, Ore.

I might add a tiny bit of gray, a tiny bit of sagging around the eyes, soften the jawline a smidge. After all, it’s only 3 years, right?  And then they bring her in and she looks like this:

Courtesy: Multnomah County Sheriff, Ore.

WHOA. This is the effect that methamphetamines have on a person. And this is something all forensic artists need to keep in mind when they are age-progressing a fugitive. After all, you start with a picture of a fresh-faced kid at 18, it’s hard to image them as a 30 year old that looks more like 60. But it can happen if drugs, and especially meth, is involved. I think when age progressing someone, unless you know they are an art dealer that has absconded to Bermuda with a stolen Picasso, or some kind of software tycoon, keep in the back of your mind you might need to make them look worse than their years. Of course, you need to go on what the officer is telling you that he knows about the person. If someone is a health nut (and yes, some fugitives are) then they would most likely not turn to drugs. The officer or agent requesting the age-progression will know more about this person than you, so listen to what they have to say. And if your bad guy is on the run,  already has a history with other drug use…..well, it’s something to keep in the back of your head. I know I’m going to pay more attention to this from now on.

To see the entire photo gallery (and prepare to be shocked) go to  ”The Faces of Meth: Before and After.”

Age Progression

How age progressions work

I won’t attempt to explain all the science behind the human brain, which neurons are firing in which lobe when we are able to recognize someone when even years or decades have passed.  I’m sure there is some research and study on that, and I’d be happy to link to it in the future. But that’s not the point right now….

What I do know is that I was watching “The Pacific” the other night, and there was one early scene where a doctor is examining a patient, a young man, and I was looking at his face, thinking “Where do I know him? Where have I seen him?“  Just a few seconds passed, and it popped in my head: “the kid from Jurassic Park.”

And guess what, that’s exactly who it was. I recognized someone that was a child actor in a movie 17 years ago. It turns out his name is Joseph Mazzello (I had to go to IMDB to find that out….sorry, Joseph):

Photo courtesy www.imdb.com

 

…and he grew up from this little boy here in Jurassic Park:

Photo courtesy www.imdb.com

Jurassic Park  came out in 1993, and I’ve probably seen it a couple times since then, but still….17 years?? I can honestly say that I haven’t seen him in any of the other shows listed…he was in one episode of CSI, but apparently I didn’t see that one.   I just think it’s an amazing thing that humans can recognize someone from that long ago. We have incredible recognition capabilities. Years and even decades can pass, and still, it works. So what was it? It was mostly his eyes that caught me, and his mouth. Given that his facial proportions changed wildly over those years (and proportion is one of the key factors in facial recognition) makes that all the more amazing to me.

Which gives all forensic artists a shot in the arm, because we work on age progressions of fugitives where we may be adding a good 30 years to them. And sometimes we wonder, “Is this going to be any help at all?” Yes, it sure could.

Or, consider the excellent artists at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), this is the type of work they do, day in and day out (go click that link and see some of the amazing work they do). They do it with an impressive success rate as well. They’ve taken photos of children, age progressed them by any number of years, and the child was found looking startling similar to the artist’s conception.

Which makes all forensic artists look good. Thanks, NCMEC.

****ALERT!!*** Boy, talk about great timing! I wrote this post days ago, posted it hours ago, and now just saw that practically seconds ago, Joe Mullins posted a news story on his“Forensic Art Talk” page about NCMEC, featuring forensic artist Steve Loftin. Steve did some incredible age progression work  on two missing little girls, the Lyon sisters, who would be in their 40′s now. NCMEC keeps these cases open until they know what happened. That’s just remarkable, and inspiring. So, please, check out this news story HERE.

 

“I’m in high school and want to be a Forensic Artist. What should I do?”

At this point…stay out of trouble. Seriously, at this part of your life, the most important thing you can do, more important than any art or science class you can take, is to stay out of trouble. And by that I mean, drugs, alcohol, anything that could lead to a police record.

The fact is that most forensic artists work in Law Enforcement (LE); most do composite sketches or facial reconstructions as part of their work in an agency. They could be a detective, a patrol officer, crime scene tech, whatever. But they have a steady, full-time job in LE, and do the forensic art in addition to that. And getting a job in LE when you have a police record, or have shown a pattern of bad behavior is going to make things tougher on you. Maybe not impossible, but still, tougher than it needs to be.

If you’re a good kid and intend on staying that way, then consider what type of full-time job you would want to have in LE, and work towards that. Of course, take some art classes, and work on your drawing skills too. But being a part of LE is the most necessary step to getting work as a forensic artist. Get your foot in the door there, and then the opportunities to being a forensic artist can open up. You’ll still have to work at that part though, by getting forensic art training, talking to your supervisors and letting them know how sending you out on a composite sketch could help a case. But you’ll be where the work is.

So how do you go about gettting a job in LE? I just found a very helpful website called Discover Policing that can probably give you all the information you will need.

 

Q: I am interested in a career doing facial reconstruction. It seems that all the jobs go to those in law enforcement. I really want to help victims and families, so where do I start?

A: This is the short answer…and I promise to write several blog posts in the coming days outlining it more:

1) Possess art talent: If you don’t have any innate skill in drawing and sculpting, then you will be at a severe disadvantage. Don’t spend your money taking a forensic art or facial reconstruction class… yet.

2) Research to see how many unidentified victims (UIDs) are in your city/state: A couple sites to check out are www.doenetwork.org and www.identifyus.org. If there aren’t many, there is likely not much need for your services (so you may have to move if really want to pursue this). But if there are:

3) Become employed by a law enforcement (LE) agency or medical examiner’s (ME) office in some capacity.
This is because a skull is evidence, and part of a LE investigation, and they will NOT hand it over to anyone that is not an employee of an agency.  There are a handful of artists that are the exception to this rule, and trust me, they have earned that spot. If you’re just starting out in the  field, the skulls won’t be going to you.

4) Learn the inner workings of the agency: If you took a facial reconstruction class, would they let you do a facial reconstruction? This is where you might hit a brick wall: *Not every agency or medical examiner believes in facial reconstruction so they may give an emphatic NO!*And they’ll likely stick to their guns.

Many artists already in LE have run into this, and they will never do a facial recon unless they move somewhere else, or the people that said “no” move somewhere else, or retire.

5) If they say YES, take several facial reconstruction classes: One 1-week class is generally not enough to do this work and do it justice (check my training page.) There’s no sense in spending hundreds or thousands of dollars taking classes before you know whether the agency will let you do one. Plus, you will probably have to pay out of your own pocket. Every artist I know has had to pay for their own classes at some point…another reality of the field.

6) If they say NO: you will probably have to move to find an agency that will allow you to do facial reconstruction.

This is why it is so hard to get into forensic art: The work is in law enforcement. You generally need to join first, then dig in your heels from there.

And..even then, you will have do it as a sideline to your regular job in LE. There are probably less than 50 full-time forensic atists out there, and they do all facets of the work (composites, age progressions, etc), not just facial reconstruction. I can’t think of anyone that does facial reconstruction as a full-time paying career, 40 hours a week. That  job just simply doesn’t exist.

I would STRONGLY advise anyone reading this to NOT attempt to volunteer in this capacity! Facial reconstructions are the victim’s last chance to be identified; this work should only be done by highly trained people working within a team of anthropologists and other LE professionals.

This is another requirement of forensic artists: let go of your ego and desires. They don’t matter.

Only the victims matter in this line of work.  If any artist forgets that, they are doing a disservice to the victims, and to the field as a whole.

Here is the site all this came from. Its a great site.

http://www.askaforensicartist.com/

Seven Crime Scene Fundamentals

 

Rigoberto Alpizar crime scene photo

Image via Wikipedia

 

By Lieutenant Raymond E. Foster, LAPD (ret.)

Crime scene protection is one of the basic, yet critical aspects, of field police work. Good crime scene practices enhance criminal investigations and, ultimately prosecutions. In this article, we explore seven aspects of crime scene protection that will improve your skills.

What is a crime scene?

If you ask most law enforcement professionals, they will likely tell you a crime scene is a location in which a crime occurred. This is an inadequate description. A crime scene is any location, person or thing wherein evidence of a crime may exist. Suppose you respond to a body dump. You have a homicide victim who has been dumped along the side of the road. Based on the investigation it is determined that the individual was murdered elsewhere. So, you have at least four crime scenes: the dump location, the murder location; the vehicle used to transport the victim; and, the victim’s body.

Later during your investigation you identify a offender and your investigation leads you to prepare a search warrant for his home. You know the murder occurred at a warehouse and not the offender’s home, however. If you prepare a search warrant, you will be searching for evidence that would tend to incriminate the offender. However, if the murder didn’t occur in the offender’s home, the offender and the offender’s house might still contain evidence of the crime of murder and therefore they are crime scenes. All of these particular crime scenes – body dump location, vehicle, murder scene, the victim’s body and offender’s home should have the same level of crime scene protection.

The concept that a crime scene is any location wherein evidence of a crime may exist impacts nearly every action a patrol officer takes. Consider that a traffic stop that develops into a felony arrest means the violator’s car (and the violator) may be crime scenes. Your next domestic violence call may be a crime scene, also.

Field Tactics at a Crime Scene

Field tactics are those defensive and offensive strategies, devices and procedures that increase police officer, citizen and offender safety. Field tactics always trump crime scene protection. One paramount and sometimes overlooked field tactic is a thorough search for the offender at the crime scene before crime scene protocols are initiated. If there is a victim down inside a location, the rescue and immediate medical care of that individual is more important than the crime scene. Another example would be the service of the search warrant at a murder suspect’s home. The evidence is not worth anyone’s safety.

Once you put up the yellow tape, follow-on personnel assume the scene has been cleared for the offender. I responded to crime scene where homicide detectives where cataloguing evidence hours after the initial call and they were surprised, and overpowered by the suspect who had secreted himself in a kitchen cabinet. As a first responder, it is your job to balance the protection of all personnel against the need to initiate good crime scene protocols.

The Theory of Transfer

In the late 19th Century, Dr. Edmund Locard, was one of the first criminalists. Locard, a French physician, developed the Theory of Transfer which is also referred to as the Exchange Principle. In essence, Locard said that whenever two objects come into contact with one another, they each leave and take something. There is always evidence of the exchange. Locard’s theory is the foundation of all good crime scene protocols.

Think of a traffic collision. How often have you noticed paint transfer on each of the vehicles involved? The paint transfer is an example of Locard’s theory – each vehicle has left something of itself on the other vehicle. At a crime scene we are locating, documenting and recovering evidence of a transfer between the offender and the location. Offenders leave something of themselves at the crime scene: fingerprints; DNA; footprints; etc. The offender also takes something from the crime scene: fibers; soil; DNA; etc.

Seven Crime Scene Fundamentals

Crime Scene Protection

One of the reasons we put up the yellow tape and deny entrance to crime scenes is Locard’s theory. Each person who enters a crime scene – paramedics, first responders, detectives and other personnel – leave something of themselves and take something from the crime scene. No matter how careful someone is, if they enter a crime scene, Locard’s Theory says they contaminate it.

We minimize contamination in three ways: denial of entrance; use of protective gear (gloves and booties as an example); and, by the use of a crime scene log. The first two are probably obvious. If you don’t go in the crime scene, you can’t contaminate it. If you do go in, and you wear the proper protective equipment you are less likely to leave something of yourself, such as fingerprints, at the crime scene. The third method, a crime scene log, helps us eliminate evidence later. If you find Sergeant Smith’s fingerprints at the crime scene it is much more likely he left them there during the investigation than during the crime itself. His fingerprint can likely be eliminated because our crime scene log tells us he was there.

Perimeters

Putting up crime scene tape and denying entrance is a minimum best practice. We can improve our crime scene protection protocols by examining incident control under different circumstances. As an example, in the field of critical incident management there is the concept of a three stage perimeter around hazardous materials spill. The three stages are the Hot Zone, the Inner Perimeter and the Outer Perimeter. Generally, a crime scene has a hot zone and an outer perimeter.

For crime scenes and critical incidents, it is always better to have been initially too big than too small. For crime scenes, the Hot Zone is those locations in which you initially suspect you will find evidence. At a homicide, scene you might secure the house, the yards, the houses on either side, and the street in front. For the Hot Zone, entry is denied to everyone who doesn’t not have direct and specific crime scene duties.

For the Outer Perimeter, entry is denied to all persons who do not have an official duty directly connected to the incident. The press, the neighbors, police officers from another jurisdiction and even a city councilperson should be denied entry. There are two basic reasons for this: If we have to expand the Hot Zone we have minimized some of the damage; And, personnel working between the outer perimeter and the Hot Zone don’t have to contend with distractions, etc.

But He’s the Boss

Typically, the most junior person is assign to the crime scene log and by default given the keys to protecting the Hot Zone. When the captain arrives and signs in, the rookie officer with the log will probably approach the Captain and record her information, but is unlikely to ask her not to enter the hot zone.

The inherent problems with having junior and often younger personnel guard sensitive areas is not only a problem at crime scenes. In Iraq, on a U.S. Military base, there is a military intelligence unit. Entrance to the military intelligence unit is restricted to those persons who have special passes and a Right to Know as well as a Need to Know the information contained therein. At first, regular US Army soldiers were assigned to guard the entrance to the unit, inspect passes and deny entrance. However, mid and high ranking US Military officers caused a problem. They would enter the location without the proper credentials simply because the lowest ranking person (typically a PFC or below) was reticent about telling a Colonel “No, you can’t enter.” The US Military solved the problem by delegating the guarding of the unit to foreign (not Iraqi) soldiers. The PFC from a foreign military wasn’t as impressed by Oakleafs, Eagles and Stars.

This point about crime scenes is for leaders. If you don’t have direct line supervision over a function within a Hot Zone you have no need to enter it. If you are a supervising criminalist you may want to go in and observe that proper evidence collection protocols are being followed. If you are the supervising detective, you probably should ensure your detectives are conducting a through investigation. But, if you are the watch commander, the divisional captain or the chief of police, you probably don’t have functional supervision over the personnel in the Hot Zone and should stay out.

Supervision, management and command staff should know when to and when not to enter a Hot Zone. Since you can’t hire foreign troops to guard your scene, there are a few things you can do to minimize potential contamination. First, place the log officer at the entry point to the outer perimeter. This way the person who can be within the outer perimeter but probably should enter the Hot Zone will feel like they obtained entry to something. Second, at the entrance to the Hot Zone place a more senior person whose first question to a would-be crime scene entrant should be, “Did you log in?” The second statement from this officer should be something like “This is a Hot Zone allow me to get someone to escort you in.” This should help communicate to the person attempting to enter the Hot Zone that they should think twice. It also gives the officer guarding the Hot Zone the opportunity to get a senior person and have that person take responsibility for the crime scene’s integrity.

The Golden Hour

The final concept is the Golden Hour. The Golden Hour concept comes from our British Police cousins. In essence, British homicide investigators are taught that the first few hours of an investigation are crucial. From the offender still being on the run to witnesses’ recollections being freshest, the earlier you can discover and follow up on a clue the better. Solid crime scene protocols are part of the Golden Hour concept. The better you protect a crime scene and follow basic protocols, the better enabled your investigators are to follow-up, run down and catch the offender. First responders often set the stage for the final outcome.

About the Author Lieutenant Raymond E. Foster, LAPD (ret.) retired from the Los Angeles Police Department. He is the author or co-author of six books including Police Technology and Leadership: Texas Hold ‘em Style. He can be contacted through his website at www.police-lieutenant.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 376 other followers