Crime Scene Investigation:

Philosophy, Practice, and Science

Part One Professor Robert C. Shaler
Pennsylvania State University

Recorded Books is a trademark of Recorded Books, LLC. All rights reserved.

Crime Scene Investigation:

Philosophy, Practice, and Science Part One

Professor Robert C. Shaler

Executive Editor Donna F. Carnahan

RECORDING Producer - Ian McCulloch

COURSE GUIDE Editor - James Gallagher Design - Edward White

Lecture content 2011 by Robert C. Shaler Course guide 2011 by Recorded Books, LLC 2011 by Recorded Books, LLC Cover image: Shutterstock.com #UT177 ISBN: 978-1-4498-3927-7 All beliefs and opinions expressed in this audio/video program and accompanying course guide are those of the author and not of Recorded Books, LLC, or its employees.

Course Syllabus

Crime Scene Investigation:

Philosophy, Practice, and Science Part One

About Your Professor.......................................................................................4 Introduction....................................................................................................5 Lecture 1 Lecture 2 Lecture 3 Lecture 4 Lecture 5 Lecture 6 Lecture 7 Lecture 8 Lecture 9 Lecture 10 Lecture 11 Lecture 12 Lecture 13 Lecture 14 Introduction to Crime Scene Investigation...................................6 The Crime Scene Investigative Paradigm and Evidence at the Scene ...............................................................12 Bias, the Culture of Science, and the Scene Investigation...........19 Scene Management: The Investigative Glue...............................25 The Crime Scene Investigative Cascade, the Scientific Method, and Logic ...............................................32 Origin of Evidence: Fundamental Principles of Evidence............37 Macroscenes and Microscenes and Finding Associated Evidence..................................................................43 Searching: The Meat and Potatoes of the Investigation ..............51 Scene Search Methods ..............................................................57 Introduction to Forensic Archiving: Forensic Photography................................................................67 Forensic Photographic Technique: Archiving Crime Types..............................................................76 The Written Record: Case Files, Scene Sketches, and Worksheets ........................................................................84 Sketch Types and Pinpointing Evidence at the Scene .................90 Fingerprinting: The Intellectual Ingredients...............................97

Course Materials.........................................................................................102 Recorded Books ..........................................................................................104

Photo courtesy of Robert C. Shaler

About Your Professor Robert C. Shaler

Robert C. Shaler is currently professor of biochemistry and molecular biology and director of the Forensic Science Program at Pennsylvania State University. He was the director of the Forensic Biology Department of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) of New York City from 1990 until his retirement in 2005. As director, Shaler was responsible for the scientific and administrative operation of the Department of Forensic Biology in New York. He conceived the strategy for the DNA testing of family and World Trade Center (WTC) disaster samples for the identification of WTC victims. Shaler managed the WTC DNA victim identification effort, which included the OCME Department of Forensic Biology, seven contract DNA testing laboratories, one public forensic laboratory, and three software vendors. He also established a crime scene reconstruction unit operating from within the medical examiners office. The unit responded to homicide crime scenes as secondary responders called by the district attorney, the New York Police Department (NYPD), and the medical examiner. The unit, now called FARU (Forensic Analysis and Reconstruction Unit), still operates. Shaler was a member of the National Research Council (NRC) that authored the 2009 report Strengthening Forensic Science in the United StatesA Path Forward. He was also on the NRC committee that authored the 2011 report Review of the Scientific Approaches Used During the FBIs Investigation of the 2001 Anthrax Letters. Professor Shalers areas of expertise include bloodstain analysis, crime scene investigation and reconstruction, footwear impressions, shooting scene reconstruction, and hit-and-run crime scene analysis.

Introduction
Crime scene investigation is an intellectual, scientific, and forensic investigative exercise. Success requires experience, creative thinking, logic, and the correct application of science and the scientific method. Scene investigations, then, are intensely challenging intellectually. To disagree is ignorance, inexperience, or stupidity. As the legendary golf pro Bobby Jones is credited with saying about his profession, Competitive golf is played mainly on a five-and-a-half-inch course . . . the space between your ears. Competent crime scene investigations are as cerebral an exercise as any scientific or investigative endeavor. They are comprehensive, tedious, exhausting, and difficult. They are, in fact, a marriage of science and the art of investigation. In 1995, former United States Attorney General Janet Reno made very clear her position on how important crime scene investigation is in the Department of Justice publication Crime Scene InvestigationA Guide for Law Enforcement.1 Actions taken at the outset of an investigation at a crime scene can play a pivotal role in the resolution of a case. Careful, thorough investigation is key to ensure that potential physical evidence is not tainted or destroyed or potential witnesses overlooked. While many agencies have programs in crime scene processing, the level of training and resources available varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as does the opportunity to practice actual investigation.
1. Reno, Janet. Crime Scene InvestigationA Guide for Law Enforcement. Research Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, 2000. P. iii.

Shutterstock.com

Lecture 1
Introduction to Crime Scene Investigation
The Suggested Reading for this lecture is Robert C. Shalers Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach. What is the crime scene, and what role do forensics, forensic science, and criminalistics play in the crime scene investigative process? The Crime Scene The investigation and analysis of the crime scene is the most critical part of solving a crime, because the scene commonly is believed to be the place where the crime takes place, and it is the only place where the participants in the crimethe victims, the assailants, and the scenescoincide in time and space. The French scientist Edmond Locard is credited with the statement that every touch leaves a trace. Simply, this means that an exchange of something (for instance, physical evidence) takes place among the participants. Known as the Locard exchange principle, the transfer of evidence is the active paradigm of criminalists and crime scene investigators as well as an essential ingredient of forensic investigations. Who is responsible for investigating crime scenes? The most common scene investigative paradigm has scene-trained police officers as the responsible authority. Scientists, too, are often part of the investigatory team. Collectively, they are variably called crime scene investigators, forensic investigators, or technicians, depending on the jurisdiction in which they work. The term crime scene technician is inappropriate and demeans the scientists and the specialized professional investigators who do this work. The terms scene scientist and scene investigator are more appropriate depending on the role each plays. If the person conducting the investigation is a police officer or detective, a nonscientist, this person is considered a scene investigator. If the person is a scientist, this person is a scene scientist and may or may not be a scene investigator. Consider the following as a first-blush attempt to define the crime scene: The place where the participants of the crime meet in time and space. The definition includes the scene as a participant in the crime, which means that the typical homicide scene involves the murderer, the scene, and the victim. But all scenes are not this simple and might not adhere to such a strict definition. The dumped-body scenario involves several scenes: the place where the murder took place, the transportation vehicle, and the dump location. 6

During the anthrax mailings of 2001, the perpetrator mailed the lethal Bacillus anthracis to his victims, which means the perpetrator was never in the same location as the victim or the death location. This makes the crime scene elusive. A more comprehensive definition of the crime scene is necessary to account for the more complicated distance scenarios. The place where the participants meet in time and space or where the instrument of the crime (biological, explosive, or other) is prepared and delivered regardless of the route it takes. Forensic Science Sometimes the terms forensic science and criminalistics are used interchangeably, and complicating this is a third term, forensics, that has gained in popularity because of popular TV programs (for instance, forensics units). Forensic scientist and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice Dr. Peter DeForest wrote the following: The term forensic science is sometimes used as a synonym for criminalistics. Both terms encompass a diverse range of activities.1 What DeForest says is certainly true, although he suggests the two terms may not be synonymous, defining forensic science broadly to include criminalistics. Forensic science is also defined in a broader sense to include forensic medicine, odontology, anthropology, psychiatry, toxicology, questioned documents examination, and firearm and toolmark, and fingerprint examinations, as well as criminalistics. Criminalistics is concerned with the recognition, identification, individualization, and evaluation of physical evidence, using the methods of the natural sciences in matters of legal significance. The American Academy of Forensic Scientists (AAFS) is a group of physicians, lawyers, scientists, engineers, and other professionals divided into sections under the broad umbrella called the forensic sciences.2 Interestingly, some of the sections in the AAFS are populated by nonscientists: jurisprudence and forensic medicine being examples. Does that mean that forensic science is simply an umbrella designation? The National Institute of Justice categorizes eleven disciplines in the forensic sciences: general toxicology, firearms/toolmarks, questioned documents, trace evidence, controlled substances, biological/serology screening (including DNA analysis), fire debris/arson analysis, impression evidence, blood pattern analysis (BPA), medicolegal death investigation, and digital evidence. Therefore, the following is a working definition of forensic science: A diverse group of forensic professionals who employ and adhere to the rigorous standards of their respective professions, who consider matters under consideration in order to ascertain the truth of a set of alleged facts, criminal or civil. 7

Criminalistics As far as the AAFS is concerned, criminalistics is a subsection of the Academy, each subsection a stand-alone profession. The Academy defines criminalistics as follows: The analysis, comparison, and interpretation of physical evidence. The main role of the criminalist is to objectively apply the techniques of the physical and natural sciences to examine physical evidence, thereby prove the existence of a crime or make connections. This is an unsatisfactory definition and, to practicing criminalists, it must defy logic. Still, the definition trail becomes murkier. Inman and Rudin3 wrote that a scientist working in crime laboratories is properly referred to as an analyst, a forensic scientist, or a criminalist. Their inclusion of an analyst is vague, and an analyst is not necessarily a scientist. A criminalist, however, is always a scientist. Legal scholars also seem confused by the terms. University of Arizona professor Dr. Michael Saks lumps forensic scientists and criminalists together in his criticism of forensic science in his Individualization Fallacy.4 The term criminalistics was derived from the German kriminalistic and likely coined by Hans Gross in the late 1800s to describe scientists working on physical evidence in police laboratories at about the same time as the term police science was becoming popular. The latter stuck, morphing into forensic science in the twentieth century, while the former evoked only confusion, sometimes becoming synonymous with a social science, criminology. In the late nineteenth century, scientific criminal investigators were known as criminologists. However, criminalistics neither died nor morphed into criminology. Embracing Kirks philosophy, it became the preferred term to describe scientists working in crime laboratories in California and in a few laboratories in the eastern United States. Even today, civil service classifications for crime laboratory scientists are blurred. Some jurisdictions advertise job openings for forensic scientists and others for criminalists, seemingly equating the two. The California Association of Criminalistics (CAC)5 definition of criminalistics is more appropriate than the AAF Ss and identifies criminalistics as a profession while still defining what a criminalist does rather than what it is. That professional occupation concerned with the scientific analysis and examination of physical evidence, its interpretation, and its presentation in court. It involves the application of principles, techniques and methods of the physical sciences and has as its primary objective a determination of physical facts which may be significant in legal cases.

Keith Inman and Norah Rudin attempt to clarify their position in the following statement. This practical definition of criminalisticsthe person who analyzes evidence in a crime laboratory may be referred to as an analyst, a forensic scientist or a criminalisthas taken on a life of its own, expanding to encompass a more general philosophy and cognitive framework. This statement begins to clarify the essence of criminalistics. Criminalistics is not simply a profession made up of scientists who examine evidence by employing the principles of science and the scientific method. In fact, it is as much a science as it is a philosophy, a holistic approach with respect to an analytical strategy with results obtained and interpreted from within the framework of an entire casethat is, piecing together fragments of scientific fact to eventually arrive at testable hypotheses. Criminalists consider all the information in a case, not simply the analysis of a single piece of evidence. As such, criminalistics is an amalgam of the principles of science, logic, critical thinking, and experience. From this, a working definition of criminalistics might be the following: A profession comprised of scientists who embrace a holistic philosophy encompassing the principles of science, the scientific method, and logic with respect to the analysis of evidence and its relationship to a set of alleged facts. Forensics The term forensics was inspired by popular TV programs, which is why the public equates it with forensic science and criminalistics. Still, forensics has become an integral part of the modern forensic lexicon. Clearly, though, those who practice forensics in the TV sense are not scientists and by definition cannot be criminalists or forensic scientists. Mostly, they are police investigators The diagram illustrates the essence of forensics. It is an allencompassing term that embraces the categories and subwho apply forensic scidisciplines of forensic science, such as those advanced by ence at crime scenes the AAFS. Notice how criminalistics bridges the gap in order to locate and between the scientific and nonscientific aspects of crime enhance evidence as scene investigation. Its role in the scene investigation is
captured correctly.

Robert C. Shaler

part of the scene investigation. Simply, the term forensics as discussed above applies equally to lay professional investigators who process crime scenes and scene scientists. In this context, the following definition might suffice. The application of standard investigative techniques to the processing of crime scenes by those police and/or scientific investigators skilled in the art. The term has expanded, however, to include a broader category of forensic professions, and the following might be a more appropriate definition: A broad term applied to professionals who apply accepted investigative and/or scientific techniques to questions related to the criminal justice system. In the evolving lexicon of everyday usage, even this might not suffice, as the term forensics has attained an umbrella-like essence that seems to supersede even that of forensic science. It might well be that forensics has become a term that encompasses all forensic activity, including forensic science and criminalistics.

10

Shutterstock.com

FOR GREATER UNDERSTANDING

Questions
1. Which of the following is best suited to investigate a crime scene? a) forensic scientist c) laboratory scientist b) criminalist d) first officer on the scene 2. Differentiate between the three terms: criminalistics, forensic science, and forensics. 3. What is the name of the principle that describes the transfer of evidence among participants of a crime? 4. What is the AAFS? 5. According to the AAFS, what is the main role of the criminalist? 6. According to the California Association of Criminalistics, what is a criminalist? 7. The following was mentioned as a first-blush definition of the crime scene: The place where the participants of the crime meet in time and space. a. Does this definition apply to terrorist scenes? b. If your answer is yes, explain why. If your answer is no, explain why.

Suggested Reading
Shaler, Robert C. Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011.

Other Books of Interest

Fisher, Barry A.J. Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation. 7th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, LLC, 2004. Saferstein, Richard. Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science. 9th ed. Old Tappan, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall, 2004.

Lecture 1 Notes
1. DeForest, Peter R., Henry C. Lee, and Robert E. Gaensslen. Forensic Science: An Introduction to Criminalistics. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill Companies, 1983. 2. American Academy of Forensic Sciences http://www.aafs.org/sections 3. Inman, Keith, and Norah Rudin. Principles and Practice of Criminalistics: The Profession of Forensic Science. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2000. 4. Saks, Michael J., and Jonathan J. Koehler. The Individualization Fallacy in Forensic Science Evidence. 2007. http://works.bepress.com/michael_saks/1 5. California Association of Criminalistics. What Is a Criminalist? http://www.cacnews.org/membership/criminalistics.shtml

11

Lecture 2
The Crime Scene Investigative Paradigm and Evidence at the Scene
The Suggested Reading for this lecture is Robert C. Shalers Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach, chapter 1: Crime Scene Forensics: Philosophy, Practice, and Teaching. Is the current crime scene investigative paradigm appropriate for the future, considering that science is advancing almost exponentially? And what is evidence? Is it always something tangible? Why investigate the crime scene? There are five reasons, with locating evidence the by-product of the process. 1. Develop investigative leads for detectives. 2. Develop specific informationin the form of evidence or investigative logicto enable a successful prosecution. 3. Locate probative evidence, exculpatory or inculpatory, to provide evidence of innocence or guilt. 4. Locate significant information in the form of evidence to allow a successful and accurate reconstruction. 5. Link crimes through the evidence. Who Should Investigate Scenes of Crimes? Without question, modern crime scene investigation is a scientific endeavor, but mixing science and investigators has not been widely popular or accepted by police agencies, although that paradigm is slowly changing. In these lectures, I am promoting the premise that the combined efforts of police investigators and crime scene scientists are critical in our technologically expanding world of crime scene investigation. This applies not to only a single investigation but to a scenes relatedness to other crimes of a similar nature or crimes of a dissimilar nature but committed by the same perpetrator. Crime Scene Paradigms: The Current Paradigm Does a crime scene investigation paradigm exist? The answer is, sort of, although it is complex. A modern paradigm composite has two main elements: 1. Police secure, investigate, and assume responsibility for the integrity and security of the crime scene and its investigation. 12

2. Police document the scene and search for, preserve, and package evidence, ensuring it reaches the appropriate individuals or agencies. Most, if not all, crime scene investigations are more complicated than that and individual scene investigative paradigms are prevalent. Because of failures in scene investigations, it was realized that upgrading through standardization of crime scene procedures was necessary. In the 1990s, the Department of Justice began publishing a series of pamphlets: Death InvestigationA Guide for the Scene Investigator (1996), Crime Scene InvestigationA Guide for Law Enforcement (2000), A Guide for Explosion and Bombing Scene Investigation (2000), Fire and Arson Scene Evidence (2000), and Electronic Crime Scene Investigation (2001). In addition, several books on the subject are available, as are numerous scene investigative checklists. These references assume the police are the prime scene investigators. Certainly, the result is an increase in the quality of scene investigations. However, one can argue that upgrading has come at a price: the repression of creative thought and logic, which leads to the supposition that better scene investigations are possible. Responders to crime scenes have varied experience, education, expertise, and resources. Most crime scenes are investigated by smaller agencies by sworn police officers having varied training and experience, likely from local specialty workshops, the annual International Association of Identification (IAI) meetings, the FBI, or during police academy training at the local level. Scene investigators in large cities have more experience and likely more extensive training. In some jurisdictions, forensic scientists respond to scenes, especially violent crimes. In others, crime scene investigators call the crime laboratory for help in specific investigations. An Evolving Scene Investigative Paradigm Applicable science and technology are expanding exponentially and are being applied to scene investigations at what almost seems a feverish, uncontrolled pace. Current thought is that relevant information should be available as soon as possible so that the investigation can not only be concluded but that corollary investigations can be linked. Before forming a modern scene investigative paradigm, it is important to consider six arguable premises that embody the basis of a new paradigm. Premise 1: Crime scene investigation is a scientific endeavor. Premise 2: Performed correctly, a crime scene investigation is as difficult and as complex as any forensic endeavor. Premise 3: Criminalists and experienced scene investigators should work together to interpret and draw inferences from scene data. Premise 4: Lay investigators should not attempt to pattern match at scenes without the appropriate credentials. 13

Premise 5: Certification should be mandatory. In addition, certification should be restructured so that scientific and police scene investigators can be rigorously certified. Crime scene units should be accredited and its individuals certified. Premise 6: The investigation of the crime scene is the most critical part of a competent forensic investigation. A New Paradigm Police training, however, is nonscientific and process-based, which results in a checklist approach to scene investigation. Still, the police are the keepers of the crime scene, and there is no question that they are dedicated and take their work seriously. Police investigators have real-world experience that is not taught in laboratories or universities. Criminalists should never replace scene investigators. If that happened, it would be a tragic loss of experience and expertise. Unfortunately, many forensic scientists look at the scene investigation as a mindless, nonscientific, and an almost rote process that should be practiced by those without a scientific background. They fail to realize that without the proper application of the scientific method during the investigation, the evidence they receive in the forensic laboratory represents the bias of the scene investigators and that evidence left behind is lost forever. Then what level of scientific expertise is necessary for scene investigations? A new paradigm is necessary and should read something like this: Police should control and assume the responsibility for the integrity and security of the crime scene. They should work cooperatively with scene scientists who should lead the scientific aspects of the scene investigation. Together, they should search for, preserve, and package evidence and ensure that it reaches the appropriate individuals or agencies for subsequent analysis and interpretation by criminalists and other forensic-related professionals. Together they should interpret scene data as a basis for the logical reconstruction of the scene events. The Concept of Evidence Anyone studying crimes, forensic science, or crime scene investigation should thoroughly understand the theoretical and conceptual basis of evidence. This is critical because evidence is the fundamental reason why crime scenes are important. Interestingly, the authors of most of the widely read texts on forensic science, crime scene investigation, and crime reconstruction fail to define evidence adequately. Retired laboratory director Dr. Richard Saferstein1 provides only a single sentence: The examination of physical evidence by a forensic scientist is usually undertaken for identification or comparison. 14

Dr. Suzanne Bell of West Virginia University defines physical evidence:2 Broadly speaking, any type of tangible evidence as opposed to something such as the testimony of an eyewitness. Physical evidence can be anything, from a microscopic trace of dust to a car, but there are some generalizations that can be made. Physical evidence must be documented, collected, marked, transported, and stored in a manner consistent with its type. The late medical forensic pathologist Dr. William Eckert3 differentiated testamentary and demonstrative or physical evidence. Demonstrative or physical evidence is something which may be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted by the jury itself. Forensic scientist Dr. Henry Lee4 considers evidence in the general sense, discussing the different types, their characteristics, and their importance, and offers readers no clear definition of what it is (emphasis added). Physical evidence can be classified according to its physical state, by the type of crime, by the nature of the evidence, by its composition, or by the types of question to be resolved (investigative question, not legal question). Each of these classifications is useful for offering conceptual ideas and practical means in the crime scene search and any other investigational assistance. California forensic scientists Keith Inman and Dr. Norah Rudin5 introduce the concept of evidence, implying that evidence and any discussion about it is really a conversation about forensic science. Although they ask, What is Evidence?, they never offer an in-depth discussion except to consider that, The law defines evidence only by its relevance. This is an interesting statement because it considers the concept of evidence as something that has meaning while forcing it into a legal context that might not be entirely true. Retired U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division General Ross M. Gardner6 defines evidence as, . . . anything that tends to prove or disprove a fact in contention. This thought is similar to Lees, who wrote more to the investigative question than Gardner, who seems to lean more toward the legal question. Gardner continues saying that, whether evidence is collected or not, . . . it is real, it is tangible, and it cannot be denied. The physical evidence never lies. It is what it is, although we can certainly misinterpret its meaning. . . . the concept of physical evidence tells a story. Each scene demands consideration of issues evident through observations made by the investigators senses of sight, smell, and touch. Thus a complete consideration of physical evidence demands that investigators be critically observant.

15

To Gardner, evidence is related to the crime scene; however, he does hint at a psychological implication during the scene investigative process: . . . whether evidence is collected or not. In the context of crime reconstruction, California forensic scientists W. Jerry Chisum and Brent Turvey coined the term evidence dynamics,7 which refers to anything that happens to evidence after it has been created at the scene.
Shutterstock.com

. . . refers to any influence that adds, changes, relocates, obscures, contaminates, or obliterates physical evidence, regardless of intent. Choosing the term, they state, . . . all forms of physical evidence are at the mercy of environmental change, activity, and time. These thoughts hint that evidence is more than something irrevocably having a legal obligation. Can evidence be defined so that the human psyche is able to recognize it? Can an investigators bias cause failure to recognize important evidence because it upsets a preconceived notion of what happened? What is an investigators skill at interpreting evidence at the scene, regardless of bias? For example, an investigator locates an item at the crime scene, perhaps a knife lying a short distance from the deceased. He examines it visually for blood and, seeing none, decides the knife has no evidentiary value. A second investigator conducting a second search of the scene also sees the knife. She considers the wounds on the body, evaluates the relative size of the cuts in the victims shirt, and decides the knife might have probative value and collects it. She considers what shes learned from experience, namely, that blood on a knife is not always readily apparent. Critical decisions made at the crime scene to ignore or to recognize something as evidence can spell the success or failure of an investigation. The same is true of the crime lab scientist. Where one forensic biologist may examine the knife visually and decide there is no blood present, another might examine the knife microscopically and then chemically and come up with a different conclusion. Evidence: The Legal Connection Legal evidence differs from scientific evidence. The former requires a legal proceeding to determine whether it is evidence, defined by state and federal rules that govern the admissibility into a legal proceeding. Can evidence exist outside the boundaries of a legal proceeding or legally related investigation? Eckert doesnt believe so.8 16

Thus physical evidence is always derivative of some sort of testimony. But when does something become evidence? When an investigator perceives it as evidence, when it is collected at the scene, or when it is introduced into a legal proceeding? The scene investigator believes it is evidence at the scene because it might have relevance for the legal proceeding. After being admitted, the importance of evidences value rises. This has a different feel than when it was still lying in a corner at the crime scene waiting for an investigator to see it as evidence. However, once the scene investigator does, and collects it, it begins its journey up the ladder of evidentiary importance. First, it passes the Locard and divisible matter tests, the investigators recognition test, the trial strategists test, and finally the admissibility standard. It is then officially evidence. Still, from an investigative perspective, evidence is in the mind of the investigator. If an analyst or investigator perceives something as unimportant, even if documented correctly, it ceases to be evidence until anothers perception revives it. What about evidence that is more of a thought or a hypothesis? Consider the criminalist who attempts to reconstruct the events of a crime by examining appropriate evidence. Much of what is examined is tangible, but the thought process is not. However, in court, these thoughts become opinions, which can be admissible. The thoughts or opinions are evidence, though not real or tangible. Therefore, a working definition of evidence might be the following: Anything associated with a crime scene, incident, or argument; whether or not it has been collected, described, photographed, analyzed scientifically or reasoned about, and which might be introduced into a legal proceeding in order to ascertain the truth of an issue.

17

Shutterstock.com

FOR GREATER UNDERSTANDING

Questions
1. Name five reasons for investigating a crime scene. 2. What is the current crime scene investigative paradigm? 3. Considering our contemporary society, name two reasons why this paradigm is doomed to fail as more science and technology are used at crime scenes. 4. Name two types of evidence. 5. Explain the difference between perceived evidence at the scene to admitted evidence in a legal proceeding.

Suggested Reading
Shaler, Robert C. Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011.

Other Books of Interest

Chisum, W. Jerry, and Brent E. Turvey, eds. Crime Reconstruction. Burlington, MA: Academic Press, 2007. Fisher, Barry A.J. Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation. 7th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, LLC, 2004. Geberth, Vernon J. Practical Homicide Investigation: Tactics, Procedures, and Forensic Techniques. 4th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2006. Inman, Keith, and Norah Rudin. Principles and Practice of Criminalistics: The Profession of Forensic Science. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2000.

Lecture 2 Notes
1. Saferstein, Richard. Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science. 9th ed. Old Tappan, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall, 2009. 2. Bell, Suzanne. Encyclopedia of Forensic Science. 2nd ed. New York: Facts on File, 2008. 3. Eckert, William G. Introduction to Forensic Sciences. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, LLC, 1997. 4. Lee, Henry C., Timothy Palmbach, and Marilyn T. Miller. Henry Lees Crime Scene Handbook. Burlington, MA: Academic Press, 2001. 5. Inman, Keith, and Norah Rudin. Principles and Practice of Criminalistics: The Profession of Forensic Science. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2000. 6. Gardner, Ross M. Practical Crime Scene Processing and Investigation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2005. 7. Chisum, W. Jerry, and Brent E. Turvey. Evidence Dynamics: Locards Exchange Principle and Crime Reconstruction. The Journal of Behavioral Profiling. 2000 1(1). 8. Eckert, William G. Introduction to Forensic Sciences. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, LLC, 1997.

18

Lecture 3
Bias, the Culture of Science, and the Scene Investigation
The Suggested Reading for this lecture is Robert C. Shalers Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach, chapter 2: The Scientific Method, Bias and Reasoning. What is the scientific method and what role, if any, does it play in crime scene investigations? Can the scientific method mitigate bias in contemporary crime scene investigations? The hallmark of any successful crime scene investigation is a team effort whose director, like the maestro of an orchestra, is its leader. How well the team performs is related to how well its leader employs the scientific method, thinks critically and creatively, opens lines of communication with subordinates, and employs inductive, deductive, and abductive logic. If done properly, the culture of science protects the team from making critical mistakes because science itself is self-correcting. Mistakes, when found, are corrected, and biases, through the team effort and the application of the scientific method, are avoided. The Scientific Method: Scene Scientists and Scene Investigators Science students will recognize the following widely accepted list for the scientific method: Observe a phenomenon that has no good explanation. Formulate a hypothesis. Design experiments to test the hypothesis. Perform the experiments. Accept, reject, or modify the hypothesis. All scenes have multiple gross observable phenomena, some of which might have no immediate, simple, reasonable or logical explanation. Each might also have many explanations of which only one rests in the ground truth. Frustratingly, most explanations will never be known with absolute certainty, because the investigators were not present when the event took place. Observable phenomena can be put into categories such as the following: People living their lives. Activity of the crime that spawned the investigation. Activity or events unrelated to either of the above. Unknown at this time. 19

Observable phenomena must be interpreted correctly, which means placing it into the correct category. If these phenomena are misinterpreted, the result can be a botched investigation leading to the arrest and conviction of an innocent person. Using experience to interpret new phenomena is a normal extension of an engaged mind, and it is reasonable. It is, however, the seed of experienced-based bias, the natural consequence of living and working in the real world. I called it the Ive seen it a million times syndrome, because everyone pigeonholes experiences. The result is a mixture of correct and incorrect interpretations of the scene. Scene investigators trust their experience and draw final conclusions based on their observations over time. This seems reasonable, but the process automatically puts the brakes on the mental exercise when theyve decided what happened. The scene scientist never proffers a final interpretation or conclusion until all hypotheses have been tested and alternative explanations exhausted. The word final is in quotes because even then a conclusion can change if new evidence is located. It is this testing of alternate explanations that separates scene investigators from scene scientists. The best fact-fit can only be determined through experimentation, which does not necessarily imply laboratory experiments, although that is a possibility. Some experimentation could be done at the scene, which might change the hypotheses or create new ones. Laboratory testing done on evidence collected is usually necessary, and that can also change hypotheses. The scientific method is not just a checklist but a method for disproving the original or alternative hypotheses. This not-so-subtle fact is lost on most lay investigators. After the data have been analyzed, hypotheses tested and retested, a point comes when more testing seems unnecessary, and a truth of some sort emerges. This truth may not represent the actual ground truth, but it will be closer to reality than if the process had been stopped after the first set of hypotheses. The process may have led to new evidence that should have elicited additional questions and perhaps new hypotheses. The scientific method is the only way to eliminate bias in an arena where there are few, if any, checks and balances. For scene investigators, the scientific method is not satisfying because it offers only a sketchy roadmap of how to conduct a competent scene investigation. This is its reality. Scientific processes are complex, and so too are scene investigations. At the crime scene, the scene scientist conducts the business of science distinct from the investigative role of the police scene investigator. The scientific mind places a premium on precision, objectivity, repeatability, experimentation, uncertainty management, peer review, and experience to arrive at reliable interpretations of clues left at the scene. The scene scientist has no mission or allegiance except to the facts. The scene investigators mind searches for facts (evidence) to fit a scenario or an idea of what happened 20

based on experience or on information relayed by messengers (for example, witnesses or other officers). Regardless, they play on the same team. Bias in Scene Investigations
1 investigators would probably bristle While everyone is saddled with biases, at the suggestion that they are biased. They correctly believe crime scene investigation is a critical process and, as such, they strive to find evidence to support a successful prosecution. They would also challenge the suggestion that they do not actively search for exculpatory evidence because their subconscious minds are focused on prosecutions. Scene investigators in the United States mostly represent the investigative arm of law enforcement and, thus, are part and parcel of the prosecution team. By definition, then, their mission is to find probative evidence to prove someone committed the crime. They do this through a process of deductive reasoning where, if the premises are true, the conclusions must also be true. By definition, then, they are as biased as the crime scene expert hired by the defense team.

The prosecutor is the most critical member of the prosecutions adversarial team and, by definition, is biased. But the prosecutor, as an advocate, is supposed to be biased; so is the defense attorney. The scene scientist who responds to the scene and who is likely employed by the prosecutions team must resist the inherent biases and should have no stake in the investigative process. Science brings objectivity to the investigative process. Science encourages cautious, precise statements and frowns on statements that venture beyond facts. An example of the kind of bias to which investigators and scene scientists fall prey includes what is known as the bandwagon effect, which is the tendency to do or believe things because many other people do. A forensic example would be the prosecutor or detective who is certain that a suspect is the killer because he is a bad guy. Letting the crime scene investigator know this could sway the course of the scene investigation, especially if the scene investigator knows who the bad guy is. Another example is what is known as confirmation bias. This is the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms ones preconceptions. Uncertainty is the breeding ground for bias, and two factors are at work: ambiguity and subjectivity.2, 3 In the former, if the evidence or the circumstance is incomplete, murky, or equivocal, the scene scientist or the crime scene investigator is free to develop opinions, which can represent the analysts personal bias. When subjectivity is the issue, scene interpretations rest on an examiners experience or beliefs, which results in bias. How does one integrate the self-correcting aspect of science into the scene investigation process? Science does it by challenging hypotheses developed via the scientific method and by peer review. Challenging investigative hypotheses at a crime scene is difficult because scene investigators are usually from the same agency, and challenging a hypothesis may 21

require challenging a supervisor. This can be professional suicide. The ideal is a team leader who is willing and open to having intellectual discussions concerning alternative hypotheses during the investigation. Theoretically, this ideal is certainly possible. A scientist working with the team will change the dynamic of the teams personality, because a scientific presence brings a sense of objectivity. There can be personality conflicts and differences in authority, but the scientist would not be the team leaders subordinate. Subordinate team members might feel apprehensive about challenging their superior, but the scientist should not. Reasoning: Deductive and Inductive A form of reasoning takes place during any crime scene investigation. And since crime scene investigation is the direct application of the scientific method, there must be logic and reasoning. Deductive reasoning works from the general to the more specific and is often referred to as a top-down process of logic. It begins with a theory and moves to a testable hypothesis. Testing or verification requires observations or experiments that address the hypothesis, which is ultimately either confirmed or not. This feels like what happens at crime scenes. Inductive reasoning begins with an observation and moves to a testable tentative hypothesis. This is how scientists reason and it also feels like what happens at the crime scene. From there, a theory is derived, which must be confirmed. It moves from the Figure 3.1: specific to the general and is Deductive and Inductive Reasoning thought of as a bottom up process of logic or reasoning. Crime scene investigations require both types of reasoning simultaneously. And by examining Figure 3.1, it appears that overlap exists, which means it might be possible to assemble both into a singular concept that continuously cycles from theories to observations and back again to theories. In fact, researchers often observe patterns in data that lead to the development of new theories an inductive process. All divisions of natural science employ inductive reasoning and establish theories and laws of nature 22

based on observation and on deductive reasoning to draw conclusions. There are circumstances where observations come first (for example, the crime scene). One might observe certain facts that form a pattern that eventually leads to tentative hypotheses, which are tested to form the basis of a theory. Still, the theory must be confirmed, which would be abduction (see Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2: Inductive/Deductive/Abductive Reasoning as Employed in Crime Scene Investigations

Many believe the process of reasoning during crime scene investigation is intuitive and subject to experience. Reasoning is employed but likely not as a conscious thought process. The scientist does this as a matter of education, training, and experience. Likewise, good investigators do it as a matter of intuition, training, and experience. As Sherlock Holmes said, In solving a problem of this sort, the grand thing is to be able to reason backward. That is a very useful accomplishment, and a very easy one, but people do not practice it much. In the everyday affairs of life it is more useful to reason forward, and so the other comes to be neglected. There are fifty who can reason synthetically for one who can reason analytically.

23

Shutterstock.com

FOR GREATER UNDERSTANDING

Questions
1. List the steps of the scientific method. 2. What is bias? 3. Give an everyday example of confirmation bias. 4. How do deductive and inductive processes differ?

Suggested Reading
Shaler, Robert C. Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011.

Other Books of Interest

Chisum, W. Jerry, and Brent E. Turvey, eds. Crime Reconstruction. Burlington, MA: Academic Press, 2007.

Lecture 3 Notes
1. Dror, Itiel, and R. Rosenthal. Meta-Analytically Quantifying Reliability and Biasability of Forensic Experts. Forensic Science. Vol. 53(4), 2008, pp. 900903. 2. Cooley, Craig M., and Brent E. Turvey. Chapter 3: Observer Effects and Examiner Bias. Crime Reconstruction. Eds. W. Jerry Chisum and Brent E. Turvey. Burlington, MA: Elsevier, pages 5860. 3. Phillips, V.L., and Michael Saks. The Application of Signal Detection Theory to Decision Making in Forensic Science. Forensic Science. Vol. 46. 2001, pp. 294298.

24

Lecture 4
Scene Management: The Investigative Glue
The Suggested Reading for this lecture is Robert C. Shalers Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach, chapter 3: Management: The Investigative Glue. The first officer at the crime scene has important responsibilities. What are they, and how do they relate to the subsequent investigation by the crime scene unit? Why is the scene management the glue that holds the investigation together? Managing a crime scene is a critical skill. A successful team leader/manager must possess certain qualities: broad experience in scene investigation, knowledge of scene forensics/criminalistics, knowledge of police and legal procedures, understanding the value of physical evidence, knowing the limitations of the science, applying the scientific method, recognizing, collecting, and preserving evidence, and knowing how to effectively blend the investigative sequence into a cohesive operation. The contemporary scene manager must demonstrate leadership skills to work efficiently in an intense environment that typically might be considered ordered chaos. The scene manager is someone who can multitask, work well with people, and understand the intricacies of the investigation and its ancillary activities. The management philosophy I present is taken from personal experience and from the experience of others who have written about scene management. However, it is mostly based on the management process presented by Gardner1 and enhanced with the scientific method. The format is based on the U.S. Army model, which is a roadmap on how to manage an investigation from a procedural perspective. The hallmark of the process is a series of checks and rechecks designed to ensure that nothing is overlooked. Scene management cannot be done properly without practice because it is as much vocational as theoretical. Managing a scene is dictated by the specific case circumstances. Many might even argue that scene management is

25

Shutterstock.com

entirely vocational, which might have been true until sophisticated science and technology became an integral part of the process. Scene management begins with a first or responding officer, an official who is probably not a member of the crime scene team. Because he or she is usually the first official there, the first responders role is critical to a successful investigation. The Responding Officer The first official on the scene has critical responsibilities that can dramatically affect the subsequent scene investigation. These responsibilities are outlined in a National Institute of Justice pamphlet, The First Officers Responsibilities.2 Without going into exhaustive detail, a first officers responsibilities can be placed into discrete categories of observations, actions taken, and documentation. First Responder Observations Generally, observations lead to a documentable action. Such first-level observations require the first responder to answer certain mental questions for the investigation to proceed smoothly. Among others, these should include, What happened here and who should respond? The answers come from responses to other questions: Is the scene activeis the perpetrator on the scene? Is the scene clear? Are victims injured or alive? Are there witnesses? A determination of the scope of the scene is necessary: Is this an indooronly crime or does it have an outdoor component? Even in indoor scenes (for example, a homicide), the perpetrator entered the scene somehow. Second-level observations reflect specifics and include subtle details that are obvious only after entering the scene. These, like all observations, should be archived using a digital or tape-recording device or a notepad. The digital era has elevated the potential for rapid information gathering. Point-and-shoot cameras are readily available and are capable of providing important as-thescene-was-first-seen information. These photographs can archive impressions and observations. Although these cameras are capable of giving fairly highresolution photographs and are certainly helpful, they are not a substitute for the subsequent official archiving done by the crime scene unit. The first officer must be cognizant of and immortalize the following. Fleeting evidence Odors: cooking, gunshot, cigarette/cigar smoke Melting ice cubes Entry/exit points Doors: locked/unlocked, indications of tampering Windows: locked/unlocked, indications of tampering

26

Signs of activity Struggle TV/radio on Meals: dishes in the sink Food on the table Partially eaten food Objects moved Accounting for moved or out of place objects (furniture)

Date/time indicators Newspapers Stopped clocks Spoiled food Hot/cold items Wet blood Monitor evidence moved/altered such as by EMTs as they attend to living victims

Protecting obvious critical evidence Fingerprints on dusty surfaces or dry residue prints on the floor or furniture Cartridge cases Spent bullets Wet and dry residue footwear impressions Broken glass First Responder Actions If the scene is active, that is, a suspect/perpetrator is still there, the responding officer will require police backup. If people are wandering in and out of the scene, they must be removed and taken to separate locations and their contact information obtained. Ideally, they will remain in a sequestered area to answer questions. Live victims may require medical attention. The first responder must call emergency medical services. If there are deceased individuals, the medical examiner should be called. Witnesses can also be suspects. They must be segregated and separated from other witnesses so that they cannot exchange information. Potential suspects should be detained and their contact information obtained. There should be a hands-off policy at the scene. This means being extremely diligent to ensure that evidence is not compromised, damaged, or destroyed. The following are possible considerations for indoor scenes: Establish scene boundaries Protect possible entrance/egress points Protect possible probative evidence or evidence location points For outdoor scenes, a short list might include the following: Protect entrance/exit points Be cognizant of weather restrictions Cordon off large areas and get help from others 27

The media is also a concern, and they should be moved far enough from the scene so that sophisticated listening devices cannot tune into discussions among investigators, or so that cameras with powerful lenses cannot capture salacious material. The investigation does not need dead bodies ending up on the evening news. A general schematic of a hypothetical 3 scene is shown in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1: Scene Security: Schematic of Security Levels

Level 1 restricts access to the scene by the general public and the media. Notice that the media has been sequestered to a specific area that is near but not too close. The media understands that they are free to move anywhere and photograph from where it pleases in areas that are not specifically designated as part of the crime scene. Barrier tape is critical, and if the media crosses it, they risk arrest and confiscation of their equipment. Witnesses are segregated from investigators, the media, and each other. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously inaccurate, and having witnesses comparing notes is not in the best interests of the investigation. Level 2 is designated for officials involved in the investigation. Only law enforcement, other officials, and dignitaries are permitted access to the scene and are permitted inside this area. This area should be marked or designated specifically by the first officer, with the understanding that these boundaries are subject to change by the investigators in charge. Ideally, a command center would be in Level 2, where the crime scene unit sets up its equipment and packaging areas. It can be outside the target area, which is where the crime took place. When the detective in charge of the investigation takes over, the final responsibility of the responding officer is to debrief the investigator and to conduct what is known as the walkthrough. This is when the responding officer and the investigator examine the scene together and exchange critical information and control. The responding officer points out observations made, important details of the scene, and other thoughts, impressions, observations, details, photographs, notes, recordings, and so on. 28

First Responder Documentation The first responder must document everything discussed above. Whether the information is recorded with an audio recorder or written in a notebook is not important. Most important is that information is not trusted to memory, which in time would be lost to the investigation. The Team Manager/Leader: Managing the Scene Investigation After the official transfer of scene control, the systematic, logical, and analytical process of ascertaining what the scene has to offer in evidentiary terms begins. This is when the team leader takes charge of the investigation. This individual understands that no one person does it all and that the successful scene investigation is a team endeavor determined by the scene itself and the resources available. Most crime scene units include police officers trained to process crime scenes. Sometimes additional expertise is required, and adjunct or part-time members of the unit will be contacted on an as-needed basis. For example, if bones are uncovered, an anthropologist will be called. If decomposing bodies are found, a forensic entomologist might be needed. Crime scene units having large caseloads or scarce resources may assign as few as two or three investigators to each scene. From any reasonable perspective, two-unit crime scene teams lack the expertise and efficiency to do justice to most scenes, and they run the risk of missing critical evidence. Although armed with the first responders information, the team leader should never assume that everything has been completed or even begun. It might be that this was the responding officers first homicide scene, and inexperience and emotional trauma can be expected to lead to mental lapses. Double checking is essential. During the debriefing, the team leader must consider legal issues for entering the scene, because no scene investigation can begin until the legal process is complete. At this point, the team leader must complete preliminary work that had not been done. For example, if the responding officer neglected or did not have time to set aside space for the command center, the team leader must consider where it should be. Perhaps the walkthrough led the team leader to believe the command center should be moved. The same holds true for the media. These are important considerations. The team must be able to work in an area that is close to the main scene activity but not in an area where evidence could be destroyed. The team leader must consider anything that can interfere with the efficient processing of the scene. Time constraints should be evaluated carefully. Consider a hit-and-run on a major roadway. Blocking a road for an extended time might be impossible. A homicide in the woods where rain or snow is forecast will force the team leader to consider protecting fragile evidence more than usual. 29

All this occurs before the team sets foot inside the scene. There are also specific scene processing responsibilities to coordinate. Scene activity must be completed in a reasonable timeframe and done correctly. The team leader will be coordinating the activity of the team, working with detectives investigating the crime and the medical examiner. There should be a continuous exchange of information. From a scene perspective, the investigation begins when the team leader designs an investigative plan and strategy. This includes the how, who, and when of the typical activities taking place: archiving, searching, collecting, packaging, and so on. During this activity, the team leader tracks the progress of the investigation and ensures that the work is done correctly. In addition, the team leader should be thinking about how to wrap up the investigation, put together the case file, and then write the investigative report. 131 Sub-Teams Without doubt, certain activities should take place before others. For example, fragile evidence should be marked and protected and/or collected before much activity takes place. For the work to be done efficiently, the team leader needs to create sub-teams. Sub-teams can have one or more members. For example, a one-member subteam might be an individual who does the establishing (overview) photography and video. A second sub-team might have two members who sketch, while a third one-member sub-team might search for evidence. As the scene work progresses, the responsibilities of sub-teams and possibly their composition can change. Most sub-teams do double-duty to complete the necessary tasks, this represents a scheduling problem for the team leader. The composition of the crime scene unit and its sub-teams is determined by the resources available. At no time should a team member be standing around with nothing to do. All scene investigations have tedious moments, exacting times, and busy work to do. There are also times when it is necessary to wait for a task to be completed before moving into an area. Generally, though, there is a lot to do and little down time. It is the team leaders responsibility to keep the team members busy and focused.

30

FOR GREATER UNDERSTANDING

Questions
1. List the credentials of an effective crime scene manager/team leader. 2. List five responsibilities of the responding/first officer on the scene. 3. What should the first responder not do? 4. Why is it necessary to segregate witnesses? 5. Why is it necessary to limit access to the scene?

Suggested Reading
Shaler, Robert C. Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011.

Other Books of Interest

Fish, Jacqueline T., Larry S. Miller, and Michael C. Braswell. Chapter 2: The First Response. Crime Scene Investigation. Bethesda, MD: LexisNexis/Anderson Publishing, 2007. Gardner, Ross M. Practical Crime Scene Processing and Investigation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2007.

Lecture 4 Notes
1. Gardner, Ross M. Practical Crime Scene Processing and Investigation. Chapter 4: Processing Methodology. Pp. 7586. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2004. 2. National Institute of Justice. The First Officers Responsibilities, 1995. 3. Adapted from Lee, Henry C., Timothy Palmbach, and Marilyn T. Miller. Henry Lees Crime Scene Handbook. Chapter 3. Pp. 4970. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press, 2005.

31

Lecture 5
The Crime Scene Investigative Cascade, the Scientific Method, and Logic
The Suggested Reading for this lecture is Robert C. Shalers Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach, chapter 3: Management: The Investigative Glue. The crime scene investigative cascade by itself is an inappropriate stand-alone investigative tool. Marrying it with the scientific method elevates the cascade to a higher investigative potential. The team leader determines the teams scene investigative strategy. Crime scene work is daunting and tedious, and keeping track of multiple simultaneous activities can be overwhelming. The goal of locating and collecting all of the probative evidence may seem like a simple task, but it is not. The investigative work takes place in logical steps so that probative evidence is not missed, damaged, or obliterated. And completing an initial scene investigation is no guarantee that the work is finished. It is not unusual for a crime scene unit to revisit a scene several times. Even after a scene is released, questions can still arise, and additional theories are sometimes proffered that question the original investigation. The general sequence of a scene investigation is shown in Table 5.1.* Novice investigators often attempt to complete the mundane archiving chores quickly to begin the fun stuff: fingerprinting, electrostatic lifting of dust prints, and enhancing bloodstains. They quickly realize, however, that an overanxious investigator makes stupid, sometimes irrevocable, mistakes, and that the best approach is slow and easy. The four steps (preprocessing, visual inspection, first touch, and second touch) illustrate the general sequence or stages of the investigation. The only exception to not touching during the first two stages concerns fragile evidence (for example, dust prints and cartridge cases) that must be protected and collected as soon as possible.

32

Shutterstock.com

Table 5.1: Generalized Scene Investigative Sequence Phase 1 Preprocessing Legal issues Visual Observable phenomena First Touch Body release Second Touch Chemistry: Fingerprints/ footwear impressions Third recheck

Debrief First Responder Victim care (alive) Medical Examiner called First walkthrough

Archiving: Establishing photography Archiving: Sketching First recheck

Evidence collection Second recheck

Beyond or outside the immediate scene Wrap-up: Debrief team

Crime scene investigative work is a cascade of sequential events. Preprocessing occurs before the crime scene unit members set eyes or feet inside the scene. This critical step is essentially the responding officer turning the scene over to the team leader. After preprocessing, the team leader has to make several critical decisions, some of which might require a meeting with the crime scene team. Assuming the team has the legal right to begin the investigation, the first order of business is to categorize the scene: homicide, sexual assault, burglary, hit-and-run, mass fatality, or other theme. The Crime Scene Investigative Cascade The first major activity is Visual Inspection (see Figure 5.1); only visual observations are made that become translated into future action. Here, the scene is archived. The three balloons labeled Observations, Video/Photography, and Sketching illustrate the major activities taking place. All observations should be listed on a notepad or into a digital recorder. Archiving photographically includes the three basics of forensic photography, to be discussed later, although most midrange and close-up photography will be taken during other phases of the investigation. The box labeled First Recheck is a critical reassessment of what has been accomplished. Here, a sub-team or the team leader checks to see what might have been missed. Evidence that had been missed must be documented as though being catalogued for the first time. At the conclusion of the visual phase the first aspects of archiving, establishing photography, and sketching should be complete. The next step is labeled First Touch to emphasize that this is the first time hands actually touch anything at the scene. In this phase, the team might release the body, but only after the medical examiner has examined it and the team has considered it as a scene unto itself (for example, archiving, 33

gunshot residue, or bloodstain pattern analysis). In First Touch, sub-teams are busy performing multiple tasks, such as dusting and lifting fingerprints on walls and other surfaces; another sub-team might be examining shoeprints to determine whether they are dry or wet in origin, and the team leader might be moving furniture to search for other evidence. Midrange and close-up photographs document these activities. New evidence must be documented, marked, collected, and packaged. Finally, a Second Recheck performs a second critical review of the teams activity. After the Second Recheck, the investigation is working toward finishing. In the Second Touch phase, chemical enhancements of evidence take place on items that cannot be removed from the scene. This might include enhancing bloodstains, Super Glue fuming fingerprints, bullet path determinations, or gunshot residue identification. These activities are the last in the sequence because the associated evidence is generally not fragile and will not be obliterated or destroyed during the previous scene activity. After completing the chemical phase, the team does the Third Recheck, the final review. The balloon labeled Beyond is a reminder that crime scenes are not necessarily relegated to the place where a body was found. It should be expected that some activity took place outside the set boundaries of the
Figure 5.1: The Scene Investigative Sequence: Overview

34

scene; someone had to get into the scene to commit the crime. The driveway might have tire tracks, or fingerprints could be on windowsills. This means investigating the boundaries of the surrounding area as though they were independent scenes. After the Third Recheck, the team wraps up the investigation, and the team leader begins thinking about releasing the scene. Integrating the Scientific Method Integrating the scientific method and the criminalistic approach into the step-by-step process ensures that an investigation is successful. As it stands in the scene processing cascade, there is only a hint of such a feedback mechanism embodied as the First, Second, and Third Rechecks. Doubtless, investigators exhibit reason and logic, but the rechecks are observational checks to ensure that nothing has been missed. This is a good approach, but, alone, it is insufficient. However, marrying the cascade with criminalistic logic automatically embraces the scientific method. Thus the recheck steps in the scene processing cascade, if they embody hypothesis testing, rejection, etc. will protect the investigation from mistakes. The scientific method is the foundation of any investigation. Adding the scientific method to the scene processing cascade upgrades the three rechecks to a time-tested, scientific process, which could translate into four, ten, or more rechecks as new hypotheses develop.

35

Shutterstock.com

FOR GREATER UNDERSTANDING

Questions
1. List the four general stages of a competent crime scene investigation. 2. What is meant by the phrase, Scene Processing Cascade? 3. After preprocessing, what is the hallmark of the next phase of the investigation? 4. Why does marrying the scene processing cascade with the scientific method upgrade the quality of the investigation? 5. What does the term beyond mean in the Second Touch part of the scene processing cascade?

Suggested Reading
Shaler, Robert C. Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011.

Other Books of Interest

Gardner, Ross M. Practical Crime Scene Processing and Investigation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2007.

Lecture 5 Notes
*Gardner, Ross M. Practical Crime Scene Processing and Investigation. Chapter 4: Processing Methodology. Pp. 7586. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2004.

36

Lecture 6
Origin of Evidence: Fundamental Principles of Evidence
The Suggested Reading for this lecture is Robert C. Shalers Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach, chapter 4: The Fundamental Principles of Evidence. The fundamental principles of forensic science and of crime scene investigators are the Locard exchange principle and the principle of divisible evidence. The Locard Exchange Principle: Every Touch Leaves a Trace Any meaningful discussion of crime scene evidence must begin with French physician and lawyer Dr. Edmond Locard. His work and philosophy embody the phrase attributed to him, Every touch leaves a trace. Although Locard probably never said it precisely like that, the exchange principle ascribed to him forms the basic philosophy of and the reason for conducting a crime scene investigation. Locards writings never explicitly mentioned something that he termed an exchange principle, but he did certainly embrace the concept of a transfer of evidence. Locard was convinced that microscopic evidence formed the essence of evidence transfer. As the forensic microscopist Richard Bisbing wrote,1 I commonly express the principle this way: whenever two objects come in contact with each other, they transfer material from one to the other. The Locard exchange produces the trace evidence of interest from fingermarks to mud. Perhaps surprisingly, Locard attributes his revelation with respect to trace evidences importance in criminal investigation to two seemingly divergent historical figures.2 I must confess that if, in the police laboratory of Lyon, we are interested in any unusual way in this problem of dust, it is because of having absorbed the ideas found in Gross and in Conan Doyle. . . .
Dr. Edmond Locard (18771966) and his son in the Lyon crime laboratory, ca. 1910. Locard produced a seven-volume work, Trait de Criminalistique, and in 1918, he developed twelve matching points for fingerprint identification.

37

City of Lyon, France

Hans Gross was a forensic giant, so it is little surprise that Locard studied Grosss 1893 Handbook for Examining Magistrates,3 which formed the basis of modern criminalistics. This was the first publication describing the marriage among science, the crime scene investigation, and the law. Locards second expressed influence was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, a University of Edinburgh-educated physician who learned analytical reasoning from his professor Joseph Bell, an army surgeon and hospital physician. Doyle skillfully applied his medical training and acute mind to create the fictional Sherlock Holmes, a highly egocentric yet contemplative master scientific sleuth. As Locard wrote,4 For in the adventures of Sherlock Holmes, the detective is repeatedly asked to diagnose the origin of a speck of mud, which is nothing but moist dust. Gross and Doyle, as well as the German scientist Liebig, were not the only well-known forensic investigatorscriminologists at the timewho might have influenced Locard. An early association in Lyon was a heavyweight criminologist in the early 1900s, Alexandre Lacassagne, the founder of the Lacassagne School of Criminology and a major force in criminal investigations in Lyon. After passing the bar exam in 1907, Locard traveled to Paris to study with Alphonse Bertillon, the founder of the first scientific method for identifying criminalsanthropometry, commonly known as Bertillonage. Like Locard, Bertillon was a forensic renaissance man who dabbled in numerous forensic arenas and believed fervently in the application of science to criminal investigation. Bertillon went to crime scenes and, as Bertillons student, Locard would have benefitted from his mentors belief in the application of science to the investigation of crime. Divisible Matter Inherent in Locards belief was that transfers required energy. Locard believed that it was the nature of a violent crime to provide the force necessary to effect an evidence transfer. Thus, a fiber from a sexual assault victims blouse would undergo a force such that when an assailants shirt rubbed against it, the fiber would come loose and transfer to the assailants shirt. Similarly, fibers from the assailants shirt would transfer to the victims blouse. However, the theory does not always explain reality. Certain fabrics give up their fibers easier than others and will require more energy to release fibers. If sufficient energy isnt there, a transfer might not occur. Still, Locards ideas represent the reality of what forensic scientists observe in the laboratory today. Inman and Rudin accepted Locards idea that it takes energy (force) to effect evidence transfer, making it what they refer to as one of two guiding principles concerning the generation of evidence: fracture or divisible matter and transfer or Locards exchange principle.5 For them, divisible matter implies a 38

source of energy. They argue that something happens to evidence (their premise is that it is not evidence until this happens) which gives it the ability to transfer. They call this a fracture, which requires energy. Once transferred, however, they define this transferred material as evidence, whether discovered or not:6 If the crime is never discovered or the evidence is never detected, matter has still divided and transferred, and traits have still transferred. They argue that the transfer occurs with only certain kinds of evidence, excluding impression and physical match evidence. They write that Locards transfer principle might not explain these types of evidence.7 Recognize that divisible matter does not account for a large category of evidence, that of pattern transfer evidence, such as prints and impressions. The transfer of matter requires its prior division; the transfer of traits may not. Defining a new fundamental principle while excluding a large category of evidence types, a priori, seems problematic. If divisible matter really is a new fundamental principle of forensic science, one would expect it to apply to all evidence, regardless of type. Logically, then, Inman and Rudins concept would require a separate fundamental principle for each subcategory of evidence. When Inman and Rudin discuss impression evidence, they state the following:8 Although small amounts of physical matter may be transferred, it is the pattern of transfer that concerns us, not the substance. Therefore divisible matter does not apply. Pattern evidence is created because a division from the original takes place, which requires energy, albeit slight, and it occurs regardless of whether the transferred pattern has individualizing characteristics. In fact, Locard would likely disagree that the substance transferred has little or no value. As Locard wrote when he described a case in which the pattern (trait) itself had little individualizing value,9 The silverware of a restaurant had disappeared. Whoever had taken it must have mounted a chair in order to reach the shelf where it was kept. As chance would have it, there was on the seat of the chair a forgotten napkin. A shapeless mark had been left on the napkin, not distinct enough to indicate the kind of shoe worn by the individual. There was, however, a trace of mud on it, and this was examined under the microscope. In the midst of various animal and vegetable waste matter, there were discovered a superabundance of fine granulations which were recognized as fecal material. This fact was a reminder that during the same night scavengers had been working in a neighboring alley. Consequently, the investigation was directed to these men. 39

Fingerprints are another category of pattern evidence for which there might not be sufficient individualizing characteristics to make specific identifications. However, that does not imply that the only value of a latent print is to make identifications. Fingerprints come from people, and while it might not take much energy to divide the fingerprint residue from a finger to a physical substrate, there is certainly a division process that takes place of not just the pattern but also the constituents of the print itself. These constituents have investigative value. For example, recent work by Leggett et al., which they term lifestyle fingermarking, suggests that drugs and drug metabolites can be identified from fingerprints.10 In addition, if during the commission of a crime, a perpetrator strangles the victim and then subsequently touches a surface, the epithelial cells and hence DNA of the victim would be in the perpetrators fingerprint residue. The division of matter is shown schematically in Figure 6.1. The original source of the evidence comes from the participants in the crimethe scene, the victim, and the perpetratorand the divided evidence goes in two directions, each exposed to varying and likely different influences.
Figure 6.1: Divisible Matter

From the concept of divisible matter, Inman and Rudin describe three corollaries, which they believe follow logically:11 Corollary 1: Some characteristics retained by the smaller pieces are unique to the original item or to the division process. These traits are useful for individualizing all pieces to the original item. Corollary 2: Some characteristics retained by the smaller pieces are common to the original item as well as to other items of similar manufacture. We rely on these traits to classify the item. Corollary 3: Some characteristics of the original item will be lost or changed during or after the moment of division and subsequent dispersal; this confounds the attempt to infer a common source. Evidence Dynamics Corollary 3 considers that once division (fracture) has taken place, the uncertainty of a new environment intercedes. This concept was first espoused by Chisum and Turvey (emphasis added) in their concept of evidence dynamics:12 40

The process of crime reconstruction is often built on the assumption that evidence left behind at a crime scene . . . is pristine. This assumption involves the belief that the process of taping off an area, limiting access, and setting about the task of taking pictures and making measurements ensures the integrity of the evidence found within. Subsequently, any conclusions reached through forensic examinations and reconstructions of that evidence are assumed to be a reliable lens through which to view the crime. This assumption is not always accurate. Evidence dynamics refers to an influence that changes, relocates, obscures, or obliterates physical evidence, regardless of the intent. Generally, the dynamic process begins at the instant that forces create a transfer of evidence and ends when the evidence reaches the courtroom. Actually, the process does not necessarily end there, as evidence used or not used in a legal proceeding might be required for subsequent hearings or trials. The divided evidence, as in the principle of divisible matter, goes in one of two directions, one with the participants of the event and the other with its original source. Each becomes subjected to a new environment with the potential for obliteration and contamination. Figure 6.2 lists influences Chisum and Turvey considered important.
Figure 6.2: Influences on Evidence Dynamics
Offender actions Victim actions Secondary transfer Witnesses Weather EMTs Medical examiners/ Fire Scene investigators coroners Suppression efforts Forensic scientists/ Family activities Police forensic entomologists/ criminalists

Cognizance of these influences should be prime investigative considerations. On-scene activity should consider whether any influence might have affected the evidence. If so, then appropriate action should be designed carefully and implemented.

41

FOR GREATER UNDERSTANDING

Questions
1. What is meant by the Locard exchange principle? 2. How do the Locard exchange principle and the principle of divisible matter differ? 3. What is evidence dynamics?

Suggested Reading
Shaler, Robert C. Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011.

Other Books of Interest

Inman, Keith, and Norah Rudin. Chapter 4: The Origin of Evidence Divisible Matter and Transfer. The Principle and Practice of Criminalistics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2000.

Lecture 6 Notes
1. Bisbing, Richard E. Fractured Patterns: Microscopical Investigation of Real Physical Evidence. http://www.modernmicroscopy.com/main.asp?article=11, 2004 2. Locard, Edmond. The Analysis of Dust Traces. American Journal of Police Science, 1(3), 1930. 3. Gross, Hans. Handbuch fr Untersuchungsrichter als System der Kriminalistik (Handbook for Examining Magistrates as a System of Criminology). 2 vols., 1893. 4. Locard, Edmond. The Analysis of Dust Traces. Conclusion. American Journal of Police Science, 1(5), 1930, p. 509. 5. Inman, Keith, and Norah Rudin. Principles and Practice of Criminalistics: The Profession of Forensic Science. Pp. 7599. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2000. 6. Ibid, p. 87. 7. Ibid, p. 78. 8. Ibid, p. 77. 9. Locard, Edmond. The Analysis of Dust Traces. Conclusion. American Journal of Police Science, 1(5), 1930, 496514. 10. Leggett, Richard, Emma E. Lee-Smith, Sue M. Jickells, and David A. Russell. Intelligent Fingermarking: Simultaneous Identification of Drug Metabolites and Individuals by Using Antibody-Functionalized Nanoparticles. Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Vol. 46, pp. 41004103, 2007. 11. Inman, Keith, and Norah Rudin. Principles and Practice of Criminalistics: The Profession of Forensic Science. P. 87. 12. Chisum, W. Jerry, and Brent E. Turvey. Evidence Dynamics: Locards Exchange Principle and Crime Reconstruction. Journal of Behavioral Profiling. Vol. 1(1), 2000.

42

Lecture 7
Macroscenes and Microscenes and Finding Associated Evidence
The Suggested Reading for this lecture is Robert C. Shalers Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach, chapters 1719.

Visible and invisible evidentiary elements at the scene are defined as macroscenes and microscenes, respectively. The evidence associated with each is termed elements. The general concept employed for finding probative evidence goes something like, evidence leads to evidence. Many crime scene texts ignore this topic and focus instead on the various classes of evidence without considering the necessary preamble that places evidence into its proper perspective. Investigators need to realize that this concept is really a discussion of scenes within a scene. Macroscenes and microscenes form the basis of a holistic1 approach to the investigation. The Macroscene The macroscene is what an investigator sees on entering the scene. It is what assaults the visual, olfactory, and psychological senses and is the investigators first visual impression. My first scene was a homicide in a dark alley outside of a bar in Pittsburgh. While the scene is not a recurring memory, it easily surfaces. A young woman, lying face up, had been rendered unrecognizable by a large rock, her face bashed in and her head turned into a fleshy pulp. Hundreds of scenes later that scene still lives, while others, many more violent, are pushed further from the conscious mind. The reason for mentioning this is that our senses are easily overwhelmed, and it is easy to lose focus. The scene diagram in Figure 7.1 is a hypothetical shooting incident. Consider the macroscene elements: a body, a bullet hole in a window, blood on the entrance doorknob on the exterior surface, blood trail on the floor, and a small spray of blood spatter on the floor to the right of where the blood trail begins. A gunshot wound to the deceased, not part of the immediate macroscene, is hidden because of the deceaseds position on the floor, although a pool of blood has formed under him. The macroscene includes obviously visible aspects, while other subtle elements can be made visual by employing simple techniques. For example, the window has sub-macroscene elements, the bullet hole being the most obvious. Others include features (elements) that do not immediately stand 43

out: fingerprints on the windowsill, shoeprints in dust on the pavement underneath the window, and forehead and/or fingerprints on the glass from pressing against the window. These evidentiary elements represent the windows sub-scene, and they, too, must be defined as macroscene elements because they can be easily visualized using common scene investigative toolsalternate light source (ALS), flashlight, or dusting powder. The deceased is another part of the macroscene. The body evokes a visceral response and tends to become a focal point of the investigation. Novice investigators quickly equate the body with the scene and ignore the other macroscene elements, but a dead body should never overshadow other elements of the macroscene. Like the window, the body has its own set of macroscene elements: bloodstains and bloodstain patterns on hands and clothing, gunshot residue, contusions, sharp force wounds, and other marks that will be interpreted and archived by the medical examiner. The macroscene also includes evidence that is invisible to the naked eye but can be made visible at the scene. Thus, a fingerprint on a door jamb is invisible until dusted. On the other hand, a fingerprint that is not visualized at the scene is latent evidence and thus becomes part of the microscene. Macroscene elements typically consume much of the energy, thought, and time of scene investigators. For the purposes of this discussion, we define the macroscene as follows: The individual, visible, or visualized elements of the crime scene, each of which is a part of the whole.
Figure 7.1: Hypothetical Homicide Scene

44

The Microscene: Trace Evidence or Locard Elements Evidence that is not visible and which cannot be made visible at the scene is the microscopic or microscene. Nevertheless, the microscene elements hold no less importance for the investigation, and they must be collected and preserved. The line between macroscene elements and microscene elements is obviously blurred and not clearly defined. For example, a blond hair on a black T-shirt might correctly be considered a macroscene element. However, a black hair on a black T-shirt might correctly be thought of as a microscene element. Such restrictive definitions are not as important as the concept and how it is thought of at the scene. The difficulty in locating and collecting these microscene elements lies in the fact that they are invisible; finding them requires the application of the scientific method through diligence and using a systematic and logical approach. The logic requires a consideration of which macroscene elements are present, given the scene, the crime type, and the type of trace evidencemicroscene elementsexpected to be associated with them. There is an intimate relationship between macro- and microscenes because the creation of one, by definition, creates the other; the microscene elements are the consequence of activity that created macroscene elements. For example, a struggle between two people might result in one of the two ending up dead. The body becomes only one element of the macroscene, but it also has a macroscene: bloodstains, knife wounds, contusions, and others. It also has a microscene (for example: hairs, fibers, fingerprints, and gunshot residue). Figure 7.2 illustrates the obvious interrelationship between the macroscene and the microscene.
Figure 7.2: Relatedness of Macro- and Microscene Elements

45

We define the microscene as follows: Invisible, microscopic or latent traces intimately associated with the macroscene and commonly called trace evidence but could be defined as Locard elements. It seems obvious that when two participants interact physical material transfers from one to the other and to the location where the activity takes place, the scene. But to what extent does this really happen? Can such transfers occur a second or more times? What evidence (debris) is normally present in the area of, say, a struggle? The first question harkens back to the discussion of the energy it takes to make a fracture (divisible matter) happen. Chesterene Cwiklik2 considered the second question, a phenomenon called secondary transfer, how often it occurs, and the effect of such transfers on an investigation (emphasis added): . . . particles and fibers abraded, flaked, broken, or torn from the items themselves as well as other particles and fibers that have collected on the surface of each item prior to their contact. The latter particles and fibers are non-component debris: not an intrinsic (component) part of the items themselves. Their transfer is referred to as secondary, tertiary, and higher degrees of transfer: indirect transfer from the source item. Cwiklik also considered the third question and defined sets of microscene elements intrinsic and exogenous to macroscenes. She placed them into specific categories, defining each (see Figure 7.3).
Figure 7.3: Hypothetical Microscene Elements

The microscene elements (evidence) of a particular macroscene environment are divided into families, each of which comprises a set of debris (particles and fibers) and an associated subset of debris (particles and fibers). There are also stray particles and fibers and small subsets that hold little 46

investigative value. Each set shares a common life and represents a record of the daily life of that specific macroscene environment. The subsets within each set arise from a diverse set of origins, including hairs and skin flakes from the occupants and fibers indigenous to that specific environmentfor example, carpet fibers, clothing fibers from a wardrobe, processes that occurred elsewhere (debris shed from clothing or footwear), and aerial transport (soil, traffic dust, insect parts, botanicals such as pollen and/or spores). Different from these is a subset of debris that occurs from occasional events. These define a timeline for activity taking place within the part of the macroscene that defines the crime scene. Thus, examining a single macroscene environment at a crime scene reflects the daily record of that environment and a timeline of transient events that took place inside that environment. Investigators should be cognizant that each microscene has this information and then tailor the search and recovery of the evidence so that the daily record and the occasional record are not lost. The Transfer of Microscene Elements Consider how much stuff there is in the world that could be transferred in an environment that is not usually associated with a crime. The amount of transferrable material is probably limitless, and each of us is exposed to a significant amount of transferrable material every day. So what is the implication of environments having a limitless supply of transferrable material? Suppose you shake hands with someone who then visits a mutual friend. They argue and the mutual friend is murdered. What is the probability that your skin cells (DNA) are on the murder weapon, a knife taken from the mutual friends kitchen? If fingerprints on the knife are smudged, they are useless for comparison purposes. But your DNA would be at the murder scene. Primary Transfer There are instances when transfer does not easily, or ever, take place. Consider footwear impressions. Some fall into the macroscene element category because they are either immediately visible (for example, wet origin impressions) or they are latent and can be made visible (for example, dry origin impressions highlighted using oblique lighting). For the impression pattern to be transferred, the shoe and the receiving surface characteristics must be able to produce or accept an impression transfer, but not all surfaces equally accept impression evidence.3 A wet shoe will likely leave a print on most surfaces, except a carpet. A dry shoe with dust on the sole will not likely leave a print on a floor that is already dirty, and a clean dry shoe will not likely leave detectable prints on a dirty floor, a carpet, or a clean unwaxed floor. So while Locards exchange principle theoretically guarantees a transfer of evidence, there 47

are practical considerations that investigators must consider logically while searching for evidence. For fibers, Pounds and Smalldon4 and Robertson and Roux5 showed that the number of fibers transferred depended on a number of factors, including surface area, number of contacts, the force/pressure applied during contact, and the type, age, wear, morphology, and thickness of the fibers. Crime scene scientists/investigators should understand and examine, at the scene if possible, the composition of fabrics situated in areas where transfers might take place. The clothing of the deceased should be evaluated to ascertain the potential for the primary fiber transfer from the crime scene and/or the victim to a perpetrator during a violent event. The crime laboratory criminalist will search the garment, find the transferred fibers, and compare them to exemplars. An important category of evidence is glass. When it breaks, it spews fragments, or shards, in a 360-degree variable pattern. Essentially, glass fragments fly backward and forward after the break, which means glass shards might be found on a burglars clothing. Shards will be found up to a distance of at least ten feet, with most shards within approximately a three-tofive-foot area. Also, the highest distribution of fragments would be expected in the area between the 45-degree lines on either side of the impact point.4 The higher the impact force, the smaller the fragments. These small shards have extremely sharp edges, which theoretically can become imbedded in the soles of shoes or the weave of fabrics.

48

Shutterstock.com

The investigation team should determine the radius of the distribution pattern and locate where the highest density is located. Within the glass distribution pattern, there might be a void, which should alert the scene scientist/investigator that shards had impacted the clothing of the burglar and where the person was standing when breaking the glass. Samples of glass should be collected for an appropriate scientific comparison. Secondary Transfer Secondary transfer occurs when trace evidence, such as fibers from a primary target, transfer to a secondary target. That is, a primary transfer has already taken place from one fabric to anothergarment 1 to garment 2. If the receiving garment (garment 2) subsequently contacts another receiving garment (garment 3), fibers can transfer from garment 2 to garment 3, resulting in a small percent of the fibers transferred from garment 1 onto garment 3. The scene scientist/investigator should not lose sight of the fact that secondary transfers are possible. Modern society is entirely insulated. So it is possible to envision that fibers transfer from one garment to another randomly as we move from place to place. Isnt this the Locard exchange principle in action? We are a living history of our daily environment. If someone attacks us in our home and physical contact occurs, there is a reasonable chance that a transfer of fibers and other trace evidence will take place. Some of these transfers might involve secondary or higher transfers. The Persistence of Locard Elements Studies have been done that show how persistent fibers are after transfer (that is, the length of time transferred fibers remain on a particular surface after an event) and that persistence is the concern of the laboratory criminalist with respect to interpreting the meaning of the trace evidence found.

49

FOR GREATER UNDERSTANDING

Questions
1. What is the macroscene? 2. What is the microscene?

Suggested Reading
Shaler, Robert C. Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011.

Other Books of Interest

Inman, Keith, and Norah Rudin. Chapter 4: The Origin of Evidence Divisible Matter and Transfer. The Principle and Practice of Criminalistics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2000.

Lecture 7 Notes
1. Holistic is a term used throughout this course. It is defined by the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: 2. relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts <holistic medicine attempts to treat both the mind and the body> <holistic ecology views humans and the environment as a single system> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holistic 2. Cwiklik, Chesterene. An Evaluation of the Significance of Transfers of Debris: Criteria for Association and Exclusion. Journal of Forensic Science. 44(6), 1999, pp. 11361150. 3. Bodziak, William J. Footwear Impression Evidence: Detection, Recovery, and Examination. Pp. 1720. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2000. 4. Pounds, C.A., and K.W. Smalldon. The Distribution of Glass Fragments in Front of a Broken Window and Transfer of Fragments to Individuals Standing Nearby. Journal of Forensic Science, 18 (1978) 197203. 5. Robertson, James, and Claude Roux. Chapter 5.1: From the Crime Scene to the Laboratory. Forensic Examination of Fibres. 2nd ed. Eds. James Robertson and Michael Grieve. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1999, p. 89.

50

Lecture 8
Searching: The Meat and Potatoes of the Investigation
The Suggested Reading for this lecture is Robert C. Shalers Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach, chapter 5: Searching: Logic in Action. A reasoned approach to finding evidence is needed to properly search the crime scene. The intellectual approach to the searchsearching with purposeis presented as the meat and potatoes of the investigation. Certain crime types spawn specific types of evidence. Finding the evidence that links the participants to the scene is why crime scene investigations exist and why searching is critical. From a philosophical perspective we can logically split the crime scene search into two parts (see Figure 8.1). 1. The mental approach, the logic required to devise a strategy for the search as well as the processes that will be used. 2. The by-product of two activities: the original walkthrough and archiving. The walkthrough is when the team leader first sees the macroscene elements and begins to consider them in the context of the overall scene investigation, mentally gathering information about the scope, size, and location of obvious evidence and the not-so-obvious fragile evidence. Archiving is included because it, too, presents a pictorial perspective of how the macroscene relates to the relative location of evidence. Reviewing digital photographs from the archiving process in the last phase of the investigation can also help pinpoint the relatedness of evidence that had been missed. If the archivists and the team leader are in synch, this information will slowly emerge from the chaos that defines crime scenes. Using this collaborative information, the team leader can devise a search strategy based solely on logic and not a method published in a textbook. The mental and physical activities required to conduct a proper search are inextricably joined, such that, if crime scene management is the glue that holds the investigation together, the scene search is the meat and potatoes. Processing Versus Investigation Modern books on crime scene investigation lull even seasoned investigators into believing that searching the scene is a simple, thoughtless process that anyone can perform. Police agencies often call it processing the scene, but scene processing is more than a process. It is a scientific endeavor, a scientific investigation, and it is certainly far from simple. 51

Figure 8.1: A Scene Search Philosophy The Crime Scene The place where individuals participated in an event at a point in time that resulted in the creation of evidence. Finding evidence linking these participants to the scene is why crime scene investigations exist and why searching is critical. Scene Type Examples 1. Hit and Run Cases a. Two carsone hitting the otherone leaves the scene. b. A single car hitting a pedestrian and leaving the scene. 2. Sexual Battery Case a. Assailant breaks into apartment or house. b. Assailant abducts the victim off the street. 3. Homicide Cases a. Violent dispute between spouses. b. A shooting in a drug case. Searches Split into Two Parts 1. The logic required to devise a strategy for the search and the processes employed. 2. The by-product of two activities: The original walkthrough and archiving.

In truth, searching the scene is the crux of the investigation. Certainly archiving is important, for if done badly, anyone examining the scene after the fact will not see the original scene. A poor approach to searching leads to second guessing, which happens if the search is not conducted logically and systematically. The crime scene investigation must be treated like any scientific investigation/research project, the difference being that it involves law enforcements investigative arm. Thus the scene investigation is not a blind process but one of immense complexity. Defining the Search The team leader should be considering specific search parameters to ensure the team does not miss important or critically probative evidence. This logical approach contrasts with modern crime scene investigation texts, which consider the scene search as a methodical process presented as a method. That is, they promulgate specific search or named procedures designed for specific crime scene types. Such a simplistic approach is as ridiculous as the term processing because it conveys the impression that scene searches are mindlessly simple. To be fair, the intent of these methods is to present investigators a roadmap for avoiding serious mistakes. As Gardner points out,1 The specific method the crime scene team chooses is really unimportant so long as the method employed is methodical and systematic. Gardner fails to recognize, however, that the search should also be logical. 52

Figure 8.2: Relationship Among Management, Archiving, and Searching Critically Interrelated Scene Investigative Components

Nature of the Scene Each scene presents investigators with a different look. Homicides in large cities often occur in apartments. While many may have the same set of circumstances, the truth is that they are not the same. Each is different and each has a different geography and different clutter. Some might have air conditioning in the summer while others may be stiflingly hot. The difference temperature and humidity make can dramatically affect the success and efficiency of the investigation. As an example, when the temperature is 97F and the humidity 92 percent, odors from a decomposing body will be oppressive. If the scene has air conditioning, these same odors will be manageable. In hot scenes, excessive perspiring makes investigators work unintentionally faster, which can result in a flawed investigation.
Table 8.1: First Scene Considerations Scene Considerations SizePhysical Terms RelevanceObvious Evidence Fragile Evidence ScopeCrime Type Primary/Secondary/Staged Other Issues Obstacles Additional Resources Required Media Command Center/Containment

Outdoor scenes have a Pandoras box of environmental obstacles. A scene in the woods differs from a shooting in a parking lot. A scene in the mountains in the middle of winter after a snow storm has obstacles different than the same scene in the spring. Each scene has obstacles and requires a strategy born from logic to search it correctly and efficiently. Logic All scene searches must embrace a logical approach. This means reasoning properly to recognize relevant evidence.2 Finding relevant evidence requires 53

Table 8.2: Attributes of a Successful Scene Search Attributes of a Successful Search Effective Management Understanding the Nature of the Scene Appropriate Logic Systematic Approach Creative Thinking Other Issues Experience, Knowledge, Leadership Size, Scope, Weather, Obstacles, On-Scene Environment, Lighting, etc. Employing the Scientific Method Not Random Relative Associations of Scene Elements

a systematic approach. As Gardner points out, searches must be methodical and systematic. He defines methodical as marked by ordered and systematic habits or behavior, which he considers the application of established procedures and practices. In the context of this discussion, however, this is not necessarily true. The fact is, ideally, the crime (not just the crime type) defines the evidence that is present. This does not mean that all homicides have the same evidence; however, two homicides in which each deceased is the victim of blunt force trauma may have similar types of evidence present, but there will also be differences. The approach to the scene search should be guided by the question of relevance for that specific scene. As Inman and Rudin put it, searching is looking with purpose,2 which means locating probative evidence relevant to the specific crime in a particular place and circumstance. Expectations during the scene investigation can translate to the search. Knowing who is arrested can present a problem because it is human nature to unintentionally search for specific suspect-related evidence. The scientific method eschews that approach. Accepting or rejecting evidence should be based on the totality of evidence at the scene. Thus looking for long blond hairs on the deceaseds clothing because the boyfriend has long blond hair is not a reasoned approach.

54

Shutterstock.com

However, looking for hairs, in general, on the deceaseds clothing is reasonable, and if they turn out to be long black hairs, so be it. Systematic Gardner suggests that a crime scene search should be methodical and systematic, and defines systematic as purposefully regular,3 which implies the application of a search method. For military and paramilitary agencies this is easy to implement because it gives their investigators a way to standardize the search to accomplish a specific goal. Accountability is easier to ascertain and standardization gives the appearance of thoroughness. In fact, the opposite may be the case. A method search is exactly that: a way to do something that is rote, repeatable, and efficient. However, unless logic is employed, evidence will be missed and evidence that is not relevant will be collected. Creative Thinking: Out of the Box The most successful scene detectives and criminalists have an innate ability to think creatively. Its a skill that some learn over time through experience. However, some see connections where others, even experienced investigators, do not. Those possessing this ability are the best crime scene investigators.

55

FOR GREATER UNDERSTANDING

Questions
1. What two aspects of the crime scene investigation are intimately linked to the search? 2. What is the difference between scene processing and scene investigation? 3. List five attributes of a successful scene search.

Suggested Reading
Shaler, Robert C. Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011.

Other Books of Interest

Fisher, Barry A.J. Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation. 7th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2004. Lee, Henry C., Timothy Palmbach, and Marilyn T. Miller. Henry Lees Crime Scene Handbook. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press, 2005. Shaler, Robert C. Who They Were: Inside the World Trade Center DNA Story: The Unprecedented Effort to Identify the Missing. New York: Free Press, 2005.

Lecture 8 Notes
1. Gardner, Ross M. Chapter 5: Understanding Crime Scene Protocols and Their Effect on Reconstruction, page 101. The Practical Aspects of Crime Scene Investigation and Reconstruction. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2009. 2. Inman, Keith, and Norah Rudin. Chapter 5: The Recognition of Physical Evidence, p. 101. Principles and Practice of Criminalistics: The Profession of Forensic Science. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2000. 3. Gardner, Ross M. Chapter 5: Understanding Crime Scene Protocols and Their Effect on Reconstruction, page 101. The Practical Aspects of Crime Scene Investigation and Reconstruction. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2009.

56

Lecture 9
Scene Search Methods
The Suggested Reading for this lecture is Robert C. Shalers Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach, chapter 5: Searching: Logic in Action. Named method searches designed to minimize mistakes and missed evidence are typically taught to inexperienced investigators. If these are logical and systematic, they have value as search methods. Pressure at the scene affects the investigative process. Although method searches are not always appropriate, there is a certain truth in them because crime scenes have been successfully searched using methods for a long time. And passing on these methods is an attempt to teach how to be proficient crime scene searchers. Outdoor and indoor searches have unique challenges. Each scene presents a specific set of obstacles and challenges, and each can be adequately searched using an appropriate method. In an indoor search, the layout of the premises and the constraints of furniture and tight spaces present challenges not encountered in outdoor scenes. Vehicle scenes present challenges of another kind: two scenes in one: the inside and outside of the vehicle. Logic is the mechanism for finding objective evidence so the jury or Trier of Fact can evaluate the evidence to ascertainas closely as possiblethe ground truth of a case. Searching is when investigators display their powers of observation, tendencies for bias, attention to detail, and experience. Historically, crime scene texts and scene instructors devote space (and time) to method searching that represents search experience by investigators who share their experiences because of their personal successes. The following is a discussion of these methods with the understanding that applying them without logic is a recipe for failure. Grid or Line Search Methods One variation of the line method is the grid search. Like all method searches, it, too, is a roadmap, and if investigators follow it correctly and stick to it, the search will likely be conducted properly. The grid search is a more powerful variant of simpler search types, such as the line and parallel methods. The reason is that the grid search is in reality a perpendicular search, because it happens in two directions. In classes, students are presented with an outdoor area to search as an exercise to illustrate how to conduct a grid search. The search is usually in the woods or in a field. 57

Figure 9.1: Schematic Illustration of the Grid Search

The line of searchers moves in one direction until they have searched the entire area. Next, they search perpendicularly to the first pass. Typically, they miss evidence on the first pass but almost invariably find it on the perpendicular. Invariably, they are surprised that they missed evidence on the first pass because they felt that they were doing a thorough job. The exercise cements in their minds the need to conduct a thorough search. The difficulty is to keep the team moving in a straight line. Some students tend to move faster or slower. Communication, at first, is also a problem, because when a student finds evidence, one end of the line stops but the other end keeps moving. On the second pass, they usually get it right. A variation of the grid search, the line search or single-pass search, is never appropriate because it is inherently constructed to miss evidence. For large outdoor scenes, such as an airplane crash, it may be appropriate to grid the scene and then conduct individual grid searches within each major grid. An example was the World Trade Center scene after the 2001 attacks. The scene was gridded into seventy-foot squares and each grid searched systematically. That scene was different than most because each grid had 3D characteristics, surface and depth.*
Figure 9.2: Schematic of Line or Strip Search

58

Other outdoor line search methods are diagrammed as follows. Under most circumstances, these lead to missed evidence, especially in complicated areas where evidence might be difficult to see (for example, woods or fields). On surfaces such as concrete and paved parking lots, where the line-of-sight is unhindered, these methods are appropriate.
Figure 9.3: Schematic of Parallel Search

Indoor Scenes: Zone and Point-to-Point Searches Zone Searches Zone and point-to-point searches are fundamentally different approaches for searching indoor scenes. The zone method illustrated in Figure 9.4 is for prioritizing search areas at an indoor scene. Areas having the most obvious activity become the primary search areas. Zones where the body was found and the entrance and exit paths, respectively, would be the prime search areas. Other zones might not appear as important, but no part of the scene should be ignored. Point-to-Point Search The point-to-point search is similar to the zone method because it cordons the scene into specific search areas. The difference lies in the reason for making the splits, which depends on the location of evidence instead of dividing an area, such as a house, into zones. Found evidence dictates the areas to search. Logic also plays a part in targeting areas where evidence might be: entrance or egress points, impression evidence, or weapons. Thus, this search type employs a form of logic. The problem is that a competent crime scene search is not simple, and it would be a mistake to employ a method simply because someone wrote about it in a book. A systematic search is characterized by thoroughness and regularity. Any systematic search is appropriate as long as it is done correctly. Success is determined by how well the lead investigator/team leader manages the team. At most scenes, quality procedures, as in quality assurance, are mostly nonexistent. Another barometer of crime scene search competence is often that a suspect has been convicted. This is fallacious reasoning, because the court system is not an effective arbiter of quality or competence. No one knows whether exculpatory evidence had been missed. 59

Figure 9.4: Schematic of the Zone Method

60

The Link Method Unlike the methods described above, the link method is not a roadmap per se, but instead it relies on logic to lead the investigator to critical evidence. The investigator works to understand and exploit evidentiary associations at the scene. This is based on findings or observations and then applying logic as the tool to proceed. In a sexual assault scene, certain evidence types are common (for example, blood, semen, and bite marks), but other evidence might also be present, such as footwear impression, discarded weapons, or ski masks. The position of the body, the location of a knife, and other specific evidence types dictate how and perhaps if to proceed.
Figure 9.5: Characteristics of the Link Method: Thinking the Search

Clockwise/Counterclockwise Search Another approach, the clockwise search, requires investigators to search, sequentially, clockwise while looking from the waist to the floor and then counterclockwise while searching from the waist to the ceiling. Envisioning a specific circumstance when this might be employed is, to be kind, elusive. There is, certainly, the question of how this method came about. Perhaps it stemmed from someone missing evidence on the ceiling. Vowing never to let that happen again, a frustrated team leader contrived this method so that his team would always search high and low for probative evidence. Seeing this method in action would appear laughable, as two scene investigators walk sequentially clockwise and then counterclockwise, training their eyes on only the waist-high and then on waist-low areas of the scene, respectively. Logical and systematic searches render this approach unnecessary. 61

Ray or Wheel Search Another widely illustrated method is the wheel or ray (Figure 9.6). Any thinking person would take one look at this diagram and wonder who had the original idea. Why would anyone seriously consider using this approach for any scene except for one with an incredibly small footprint?

Figure 9.6: Ray or Wheel Search

Employing On-Scene Technology and Statements Logic in action means taking advantage of everything available to narrow the search area. An example might be a burglar caught on a surveillance camera that captured the individuals path through the scene and the areas he touched. This dramatically narrows the search area because the investigator knows exactly how the burglar got inside the premises and what he touched. Most of the logic of determining where to search is gone. Areas not captured by the video, however, cannot be dismissed easily and must be searched. Statements by witnesses and victims can also help narrow the search area. Pressures at the Scene Ideally, pressures of the search would relate only to finding probative evidence and archiving the scene properly. However, the reality is that pressures exist on a multitude of levels. Certainly, there is an internal pressure to locate evidence, but pressure can come from outside. The media hounding the team leader for information. The team leader being tied up with detectives. The size of the team: members of a small team may work well together but will have more work, and rushing can create errors.

62

Thinkstock.com

 Demanding superiors creating pressure to speed the search and provide investigative information quickly. Environmental insults creating pressures on outdoor scenes. Political pressure getting raised in high-profile cases (police shootings, deaths of well-known individuals, cases of bias, etc.). Constraints All scenes have constraints, whether these have to do with time, workload, the weather, or geography. Archiving and Searching Common Scene Types Investigators encounter certain crime scene types routinely. Burglaries have evidence commonly associated with them and so do homicides and sexual assaults. Still, each crime scene is unique and each presents challenges different from the so-called norm for that crime type. With respect to evidence, different crime types present overlapping categories of evidence because, for example, what starts as a burglary may well end up as a homicide or a sexual assault. Searching and archiving are overlapping exercises. The forensic archivists responsibility is to capture the scene photographically or by sketching, which should ultimately lead to evidence that is collected. During the archiving process, the investigator who finds evidence should alert the search team and team leader. Figure 9.7 gives an overview of common evidence types associated with certain crime types. Recognize that some of these commonly overlap.
Figure 9.7: Selected Examples of Evidence in Case Types

63

Technology to Aid Searching Most search activities are visual, but using technology such as the alternate light source (ALS) can improve the quality of the evidence located. Table 9.1 provides the wavelengths used on an ALS for locating specific types of evidence.
Table 9.1: Using the ALS to Locate Evidence
Wavelength (nanometers [nm]) White Light UV365 Principal Use General scene scanning Fingerprints on shiny surfaces Hair, fiber, fluorescent material-powders Body fluids/bruises/bite marks Food stains Bloodstains Food stains Body fluids, semen, blood Powders/teeth/bones Paint/fibers/accelerants Fluorescent materials/powders Body fluids Diazafluoren (DFO)/Indanedione developed fingerprints Super Glue fumed fingerprints Inks Viewing Lens Clear Clear or Yellow Clear Orange

415 450

465485 515535

Orange Red

570

Red

Searching for Trace Evidence: Overview Considerations The search for evidence does not end with visible elements. The search team must also consider invisible evidence. Collecting trace evidence is critically important, and it requires employing a logical thought process of knowing where to look and using standard techniques to collect it. Table 9.2 is a limited checklist of places where microscene evidence might logically be found. It also explains the reasons why these are places to begin searching. The flip side of the search coin for trace evidence is knowing where not to search. It would be ridiculous for the scene scientist/investigator to vacuum or tape lift all items of furniture at the scene to find the one piece of furniture that has fiber evidence from a perpetrators shirt. The subsequent laboratory work is time consuming and tedious, and submitting hit-or-miss evidence in bulk to cover a shoddy scene investigation will incur the wrath of the crime laboratory scientist. Obviously, finding and collecting probative evidence is critical, but collecting evidence without a valid reason is stupidity in action. 64

Table 9.2: Locations Where Trace Evidence Might Be Found Location Points of entrance and egress Reason These are areas where the perpetrators might have been and can be locations of fibers, hairs, and other evidence. These areas are prime targets for hairs, fibers, blood, and saliva. They include furniture and carpets, and should not be overlooked. The clothing of victims and suspects in direct contact with each other should have fiber, hair, saliva, and blood evidence present. Fabric furniture involved in a struggle (turned over chairs, for example) has the potential of attracting fibers and hairs. The likelihood depends on the characteristics of the fabricwhether it accepts and/or gives up its fibers readily. These can also have saliva and blood. The body and its clothing. Anyone involved in a struggle has the possibility of having trace evidence under the fingernails: hairs, fibers, saliva, and blood. If a perpetrator (for example, a burglar) is searching for valuables, the areas he searched are prime targets for trace evidence.

Areas of struggle

The clothing and shoes of participants in the crime (victims and suspects)

Furniture: understanding the transfer potential of certain fabrics

Bodies of decedents Fingernails

Areas searched by the perpetrators

65

FOR GREATER UNDERSTANDING

Questions
1. Name four named method searches. 2. Assume you are searching a wooded area for skeletonized body parts. Which of the following would be your first choice? a. The point-to-point search b. The line search c. The spiral search d. None of the above 3. What wavelength is used on the ALS to locate semen evidence? 4. Which of the following is correct? All searches should be a. Regular and logical b. Thorough and systematic c. Systematic and logical d. Regular and thorough

Suggested Reading
Shaler, Robert C. Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011.

Other Books of Interest

Lee, Henry C., Timothy Palmbach, and Marilyn T. Miller. Henry Lees Crime Scene Handbook. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press, 2005.

Lecture 9 Notes
*Shaler, Robert C. Who They Were: Inside the World Trade Center DNA Story: The Unprecedented Effort to Identify the Missing. New York: Free Press, 2005.

66

Lecture 10
Introduction to Forensic Archiving: Forensic Photography
The Suggested Reading for this lecture is Robert C. Shalers Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach, chapter 6: The Principles of Forensic Photography. Archiving versus documentation is the process of creating a permanent record of the scene such that it is compatible with a modern digital world. The archiving processes include photography, video, sketching and 3D imaging. No single archiving method is sufficient, and the approaches vary from the simple process of taking notes to using increasingly complex technology. An agency using only 35 mm or digital cameras coupled with sketching and measuring is not doing its job properly. Similarly, videography alone is insufficient and inadequate, as are the newer 3D archiving systems. Active Archiving Active archiving is the process of combining rote, passive archiving with an engaged brain. Taking establishing (overview) photographs of a room with a dead body while simply moving from perspective to perspective and snapping photographs is passive archiving. The archivist should be thinking about the visual scene elements. Is it enough to record the body lying on the floor in a pool of blood? No! It is

67

Shutterstock.com

also critical that photographs include the tip of the knife sticking out from under the deceased and the knife just hidden under the sofa six feet away. Either perspective might be a critical part of the eventual scene reconstruction because subsequent photographs might miss that angle. The archiving process is the visible investigation of the scene and is an essential aspect of an active investigation. The forensic photographer shouldnt care about being artistically creative, but being creative in the forensic sense. Photographs must capture the best perspectives at the scene to capture its story. The forensic photographer uses the scene to guide the continuum of photographs from relevant evidence to relevant evidence. The Purpose of Forensic Photography Forensic photography has far-reaching implications, but the most obvious purposes are straightforward. Record and preserve the as-found condition of the scene. Show the relative position of evidence at the scene. Establish the relative dimensions of evidence. Cross-complement other archiving techniques. The overriding responsibility of the investigator is to capture the scene without missing the integral relationships of evidence. The paradox is that forensic photography is an insufficient medium to capture everything. Critical Aspects of Forensic Photography For appropriate forensic photography, the properly outfitted photographer needs the following photographic equipment at a minimum. A single-lens reflex (SLR) digital camera having, minimally, the capability to take burst photos, adjustable white balance choices, and a menu for manipulating the white balance, ISO (image sensor) selections ranging from 100 to 6400, manual override modes (aperture, shutter, and manual and program priorities), and exposure compensation. It should also have an external flash attachment. Close-up macro lens: f/1.4 or f/2.8, 60 mm. Zoom lenses: f/2.8, 18 to 70 mm, and 70 to 200 mm, or an f/3.5, 18 to 200 mm. Polarizing lenses to eliminate glare. Ball-head tripod. External flash. Lighting slaves. Light towers. Appropriate filters for use with an ALS: yellow, orange, and red. 68

 Ring flash attachment. Scales. Essential Skills of Forensic Photography: Focus If its not in focus, the rest doesnt matter. Gone are the days when the photographer has to wait for the film to be developed before learning whether a photo is in tack sharp focus1. Most check the LCD viewer on the back of the camera to inspect photographs. The LCD viewer can fool you, however. Although the photograph might appear to be in focus, it might be out of focus when viewed on the computer screen. Having photographs in tack-sharp focus is vitally important to professional and forensic photographers. Use a tripod with a ball-head mount or at least a monopod (there are situations, however, where hand-held is the only way to get the correct photograph). Pressing the shutter moves the camera. Use a cable release, the self-timer function, or the infrared wireless remote shutter. Lock the cameras mirror in the up position. Normally, the camera moves the mirror up and locks it while taking the photograph, and this causes movement inside the camera. The solution is to move the mirror up manually. According to Kelby,2 this is the second most important precaution next to a tripod to keeping photographs tack sharp. Vibration Reduction (VR), or Image Stabilization (IS), is designed to minimize vibration that comes from pressing the shutter. The rules of thumb: If you are hand-holding the camera, activate the VR system. If the camera is on a tripod, deactivate the VR system. Shoot at the lenss sharpest aperture. Generally, this is about two full stops smaller than wide open. Each lens will have a sweet spot from which it will deliver its sharpest images. Use high-quality glass lenses for tack-sharp photographs. Avoid high ISOs, if possible. When shooting on a tripod in dim light, keep the ISO at the lowest possible setting. If hand-holding in dim light, it may be impossible to get the photograph without using a higher ISO. Because the LCD on the camera is an unreliable gauge of focus, use the zoom feature to examine the photograph detail for focus. Out-of-camera image manipulation can help with focus, but the original image must remain without modification. In fact, there is a trend to avoid or not even allow software manipulation of photos. 69

 Hand-holding the camera in anything but direct sunlight increases the likelihood of obtaining out-of-focus photographs. A trick is to use the cameras burst function. In hand-holding situations, bracing the camera against something can steady it sufficiently to obtain sharp photographs. The Correct Forensic Exposure Exposure refers to the amount of light entering the camera and has been defined as the duration and amount of light needed to create an image.3 The basic unit of exposure is the stop, where one stop is the equivalent of doubling or halving the amount of light entering the camera, which the photographer controls by adjusting the aperture, shutter speed settings on the camera, or the ISO (International Organization for Standardization). Controlling exposure allows the photographer to obtain perfect forensic perspective. Aperture: Forensic Photographic Gold Aperture refers to the size of the Figure 10.1: Aperture Basics hole through which light enters the camera. This opening to the cameras external world is covered by a mechanical shutter that closes more quickly or more slowly (shutter speed) and limits the time the digital sensor is exposed to the light. The camera settings used to adjust the size of the hole are called f-stops or f/numbers. Aperture settings are the forensic equivalent of photographic gold because aperture is the first consideration when photographing anything at the crime scene. This is because it controls the perspective: what is in focus or depth of field (DOF).
Table 10.1: Forensic Photographic Types
Category of Photograph Establishing Midrange Reason for the Photograph Continuous, overlapping perspective of the scene. Scales are not necessary. Maximum depth of field (f/11 to f/22). Capture immediate surroundings and relative relationship of potentially probative evidence. Scales may be necessary depending on subject. If so, photographs should be taken with and without scales. Maximum depth of field (f/8 to f/16). Captures detail of potentially probative evidence. Photographs should be taken with and without scales. Generally, a shallow depth of field (f/1.4 to f/4). Weiss characterizes close-up images as a way to capture evidence in relation to its discovered location.

Close-up or microphotography

70

Telling the Scenes Story: Importance of Aperture The forensic photographer must decide what should be in focus. By choosing the aperture first, the photographer is not only determining what should be in focus in his photography, but he is also making a thoroughly considered decision after critically evaluating the scene. This is active archiving. Shutter Speed The role of the shutter is to shut off the light getting to the digital sensor, which it does by opening and closing the cover (diaphragm) over the aperture. The speed at which this happens determines the specific amount of light entering the camera. This is actually a measure of how long the shutter is open. Like aperture settings (f-stops), shutter speeds follow a standard scale: 1/8000, 1/4000, 1/2000, 1/1000, 1/500, 1/250, 1/125, and so on, where the denominator refers to fractions of a second. Shutter speed is a concern for photographers because the longer the shutter is open, the longer the photographer has to hold the camera still. A shutter speed of 1/60 (1/30 or 1/15 if the camera has vibration control) is usually necessary. ISO The ISO is a measure of the digital sensors sensitivity to light. The higher the ISO, the more sensitive the sensor is to light. For forensic work, the practical implication is that larger ISO numbers offer an opportunity to shoot in dim light. The trade-off is that, as the ISO numbers increase, the resulting photograph begins to deteriorate. In practical terms, this results in less opportunity to blow up the photograph. Focal Length: Lenses The focal length has nothing to do with exposure. It is lens dependent, and for practical applications it refers to how far an object must be from the lens for it to fill the viewfinder. The normal zoom lens18 to 55 mm (close to what the human eye perceives)is in the middle of the range. This lens is
Figure 10.2: Illustration of Lens Focal Length

71

appropriate for mid-range photographs. The wide-angle zoom (12 to 24 mm) allows the photographer to capture more of the scene without moving back and is appropriate for establishing photographs. Also, it may be appropriate in a tight space. The telephoto lens (55 to 200 mm) captures detail farther away from the object photographed and has value for outdoor scenes for midrange/establishing (55 mm setting) photographs and midrange (200 mm) setting. They have some value as an alternative to a MACRO lens for closeups, although the quality is not nearly as good. A useful lens for close-up photographs is a fixed focal length 60 mm MACRO lens. Metering Cameras need to know how much light is being reflected from an object to decide on an appropriate exposure. Modern digital cameras accomplish this by using TTL (through-the-lens) metering systems, which means the camera measures the amount of light that is reflected from an object. However, TTL systems often force the camera into making poor decisions; the result is over- or underexposed photographs. Modern digital SLR cameras typically give the photographer choices to tell the camera how to measure the light hitting the digital sensor: Examples include matrix, center-weighted, and spot. For most forensic shooting situations, the matrix setting gives the most consistent results. However, situations exist that require the photographer to use a different type of metering, such as in backlit situations. White Balance (WB) There is nothing more frustrating than sorting through a series of crime scene photographs with a blue cast. The cause is an improper white balance. The white balance setting on digital SLR cameras tells the camera how to see white. Actually, WB settings allow the camera to produce accurate colors under a variety of lighting conditions.4 All color has what is known as a color temperature, measured in degrees Kelvin. If the photographer chooses the incorrect color temperature, the colors present in the photograph can be off, which is unacceptable. Luckily, modern digital cameras typically include a menu of either icons or described situations available.5 For most scenes, the WB should be set for the particular area of the scene of interest for that specific perspective. The linked area would be photographed at a later time. Some digital cameras allow WB bracketing, which means the photographer can shoot a sequence of three images. One frame will be at the WB setting chosen by the photographer, one will be slightly warmer and the other slightly cooler. This gives the photographer a better chance of accurately capturing colors. Another way of setting white balance is to shoot the photograph using the RAW file setting and then altering the white balance using appropriate photo-editing software. This cannot be done for JPEG photographs.

72

Taking the Perfect Forensic Photograph The process for acquiring properly exposed, forensically relevant photographs begins with choosing the proper perspective, which means careful consideration before pressing the shutter release button. This is when the scene scientist/investigator decides what the scene is going to say to future investigators. The second step is to examine the lighting at the scene (incandescent, outdoors, fluorescent, or other). Then set the white balance (WB) appropriately. Next, move the selector knob to the A, aperture priority. This is when you consider the type of photograph you need: establishing, midrange, or closeupand hence the depth-of-field required. After setting the aperture, the camera decides shutter speed based on the reflected light entering the TTL metering system. The resulting photograph tells the photographer whether the camera is reading the scene properly. Examine the WB and exposure on the photograph in the viewfinder. If they appear perfect, youre finished and can move on to the next photograph. This is rarely the case, and capturing that perfect photograph will require some final adjustments to the exposure. When the WB and aperture are set, turn the selector knob to M or manual priority. Change the
Figure 10.3: Capturing the Perfect Forensic Photograph: A Roadmap

Shutterstock.com

73

shutter speed until you get the best exposure. This might require taking several photographs. The final step is to bracket the shots at different shutter speeds and/or the WB. Forensic Aspects of Photography Although forensic photography is simply the application of photographic principles to forensic situations, there are rules that are inviolate. The first photograph in a series must have an incident photographic worksheet or cover sheet. This is usually a gray card with colored stripes, the case number, date, location, and name of the photographer. Photographs must be listed in a photo log. Scenes must be preserved using establishing, midrange, and closeup photographs. Close-up photographs must include one with scales and the other without scales. Illumination (metering) should be appropriate to capture impression evidence detail. There should be a continuity of overlapping establishing photographs. Tripods should be used for all photographs where the camera must be steady: close-ups, certain midrange photos, Luminol (BlueStarTM) photography, and dim light situations. The camera (and tripod) should be perpendicular to the plane in which the evidence lies and horizontal (parallel). Scales must be in the same plane as the object photographed. Photographs should be taken before and after each on-scene manipulation (enhancement attempts) of evidence. The pop-up flash on the camera should never be used except in specific circumstances.

74

FOR GREATER UNDERSTANDING

Questions
1. What is forensic archiving? 2. What is the relationship between the aperture setting and the depth of field (DOF)? 3. Name three camera settings that determine exposure. 4. In order to take the perfect forensic photograph, what should be your first consideration? a. Determining the appropriate forensic perspective and then adjusting the aperture setting appropriately. b. Taking a photograph on the auto or point-and-shoot mode of the camera and then changing aperture and shutter speeds accordingly. c. Consider the white balance of the area being photographed and then change it accordingly.

Suggested Reading
Shaler, Robert C. Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011.

Other Books of Interest

Kelby, Scott. The Digital Photography Book. Vol. 1, p. 12. Berkeley, CA: Pearson Education/Peachpit Press, 2006. Lezano, Daniel. The Photography Bible: A Complete Guide for the 21st Century Photographer. P. 40. Cincinnati, OH: David and Charles Publishers, 2008.

Lecture 10 Notes
1. Lezano, Daniel. The Photography Bible: A Complete Guide for the 21st Century Photographer. P. 40. Cincinnati, OH: David and Charles Publishers, 2008. 2. Kelby, Scott. The Digital Photography Book. Vol. 1. P. 12. Berkeley, CA: Pearson Education/Peachpit Press, 2006. 3. Nikon, Inc. The Nikon Guide to Digital Photography with the D40 Digital Camera. P. 45. Melville, NY: Nikon Inc., USA, 2006. 4. Kelby, Scott. The Digital Photography Book. Vol. 1. P. 12. Berkeley, CA: Pearson Education/Peachpit Press, 2006. 5. Nikon, Inc. The Nikon Guide to Digital Photography with the D40 Digital Camera. P. 49. Melville, NY: Nikon Inc., USA, 2006.

75

Lecture 11
Forensic Photographic Technique: Archiving Crime Types
The Suggested Reading for this lecture is Robert C. Shalers Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach, chapter 6: The Principles of Forensic Photography.

Forensic procedures dictate that three types of photographs are made at crime scenes. And capturing the evidentiary information requires following critical forensic procedures.
The forensic archivist must be an expert in not only recognizing evidence at the crime scene but in capturing it in three principle photographic types: establishing, midrange, and close-ups. Establishing: Overview or Overall Photographs Establishing photographs are overviews of the scene and are the first stage of archiving the scene. These are designed to depict the general orientation of the scene and should be shot in sequence so that the end result is a series of overlapping images. Establishing shots should be taken before and after evidence markers are in place. The reason is to capture first the unaltered scene and then show the relationship of marked evidence. It is also appropriate for mid-range photographs to have evidence markers in place. The relative position of all evidence, even evidence not yet found, should be in the photograph unless obscured. Schematics exist for establishing shots designed to capture the essence of the scene. These are designed to minimize mistakes, but careful and critical thought is necessary before embarking on a photographic campaign. Establishing photographs means aiming for maximum DOF. This means using an appropriate lens (illustrated in Figure 11.1). For this scene, the focus should be approximately ten feet into the scene (in front of where the body lies). Focusing on the body may bring other areas of the scene out of focus. As an establishing shot, this photograph is not just about the body, but the relationship of the body to everything in the specific area. The hatched arrow in the middle of the schematic illustrates the first choice for focus. Experimental photographs will tell the photographer where the optimal focal point should be. The illustration suggests using a shorter focal length; however, too short a focal length can cause distortion problems. If the photographer uses a wideangle lens, the resulting photographs can appear off. There are circumstances, however, where the photographer needs a wide-angle lens to get the entire scene in a single shot. 76

Figure 11.1: Where to Focus at the Scene

Midrange Photographs The next step is to get closer to the evidence so the evidences relative position in a specific area of the scene is clearer. For example, the establishing shot may show a knife lying some distance from the deceaseds right arm. It is critical to pinpoint the knifes position perfectly, which may require multiple perspectives. A bloodstain pattern on a wall should be captured in midrange photographs, and the entire pattern captured. Establishing photographs tell an observer that the bloodstain pattern is present, but the midrange shot captures the size and shape of the entire patternevidence marker and scales in place. Subsequent close-up photographs will detail specific droplets of interest: directionality, size, those having included air bubbles, and pieces of tissue. Bloodstain patterns should never be photographed using a flash. Scales are not necessary for midrange photographs, but there are exceptions, such as the discussed bloodstain pattern. Close-up Photographs Evidence having detail with criminalistic or investigative valueknife length and widthmust be preserved photographically. An important category of evidence that should be included is impression or pattern evidence: fingerprints, footwear impressions, tire tracks, and tool marks. The first photograph is taken without scales and the second with scales. All close-ups should be shot using a tripod. Close-up photographs by definition do not have DOF because they are usually taken of evidence on planar surfaces. There are instances, however, where surfaces are curved (fingerprints on doorknobs). 77

Illumination For photographers, light is either controlled or uncontrolled. In a controlled setting, the photographer controls the type, the amount, and the location of the light entering the camera. An uncontrolled environment uses primarily ambient light. The illustration in Figure Figure 11.2: Oblique Lighting 11.2 shows where to place the light source depending on the depth of the impression. Impressions having a shallow texture require a near floor-level light source. Less of an oblique light source for deeper 3D impressions will usually suffice. Filters Filters are useful to darken, make warmer or cooler, or eliminate glare in photographs. Some specifically block or pass visible, ultraviolet, or infrared light, and some darken a photograph a specific number of stops. From a forensic perspective, most filters have limited utility. However, some are important depending on the subject photographed. Other filters are used in conjunction with alternate light sources. Specific wavelengths of light interact with matter in basic ways: The light is absorbed, transmitted, or reflected. Sometimes the light absorbs energy and then loses it in the form of a photon (light) called fluorescence. However, because of the light reflected from the object, the fluorescence may not be
Figure 11.3: The Interaction of Light with Matter

78

visible to the naked eye or the camera. Losing the reflected light means blocking it so that it never makes it to the camera. This is accomplished using barrier filters. Camera Positions Camera positioning is critical to capturing the evidence correctly. If the scene photograph is distorted or the lens not perpendicular to the plane in which the evidence lies, direct comparisons with exemplar evidence might be compromised. All photographs must be taken parallel (horizontal) to the plane and the lens must be perpendicular (vertical) to the evidence.
Figure 11.4: Positioning the Camera Relative to the Evidence Photographed

Scales Close-up and some midrange photographs must have scales in at least one photograph. Properly aligning the scales along the width and length of the most important aspects of the evidence is critical. Placing a single scale along one side of a fingerprint or on one side of a knife is not correct. Each side must have a scale. Photographic Archiving of Common Scene Scenarios Photography is only one aspect of the investigative jigsaw puzzle, and it must fit into the logic of the investigation without hindering the flow of the investigation. So scheduling is critical. If one part of the process happens out of phase, such as photography, the investigation can be inefficient and the team may miss critical evidence. 79
Figure 11.5: Incorrect Placement and Use of Scales

Robert C. Shaler

Vehicular Accidents Vehicular accidents are complicated, are almost always outdoors, and often occur in high-traffic areas. Archiving these scenes is as much a public service as an insurance issue because the possibility of criminal as well as civil lawsuits looms large. The following is a list of accident scene subjects that, if present, should be captured.* In addition to macroscene elementsvehicles, vehicle impact points, blood, debris, and skid marksit is important to portray those intangible characteristics endemic to accident scenes: the sightlines of the drivers and witnesses and obstructions that might have hindered them. Traffic controls and the relative location of signals, yield, and stop signs are also important. Sight-line photographs should be taken at drivers eye level. The exact heights at which the photographs were taken must be recorded, and if estimates are needed, these must be recorded. Accidents can occur because of factors outside the control of the driver: glare from sunlight, darkness, and bad weather. Capturing this information is critical, too. Homicide Scenes Indoor homicide scenes often display signs of activity that carry across several rooms. This should be captured in a continuum as though filming the scene while the crime is taking place. Investigators often treat the body as the most important part of the scene, but this notion is far from correct. The medical examiner/coroner needs to conduct a competent medico-legal investigation and the scene is an important aspect of that investigation. But waiting before moving and transporting the body is not a big deal. It is more important to conduct the investigation logically, systematically, and completely; photographing the body is only one part of the archiving process. Eventually the body becomes the forensic photographers focal point. And there are logical procedures for documenting the body and its immediate environment. Special Photographic Situations The forensic archivist regularly encounters challenging circumstances. Those that can be predicted require some discussion. Night and Low-Light Scenes At night or in dark situations, exposure poses a problem because the light the camera needs to record an image is either minimal or not available. If the ISO and aperture/shutter combinations do not compensate for the diminished light, an artificial source (flash or special technique such as painting with light or light fill) or extended exposure times are necessary. The flash unit on top of the camera should never be used to photograph evidence directly except in extraordinary situations. The cameras on-board 80

flash can be too bright and can wash out the detail of the evidence or obliterate it entirely. That is not to imply that flash photography has no forensic value. Its value comes when the evidence and the background on which it lies are essentially the same color; that is, there is too little contrast. Painting with Light Painting with light is a technique for illuminating large outdoor scenes. The photographer sets the camera on a tripod to stabilize it, opens the shutter to B (bulb), and keeps it open while moving a flash unit around the area photographed. A long synchronization cord is necessary to allow the attached flash to illuminate up to 150 feet. Slaves Slaves are nonattached flash units that trigger when another flash goes off. Using slaves is similar to painting with light except that the photographer places individual flash units in strategically located positions at the scene. When the on-board flash (or off-camera-attached flash) goes off, the light triggers the slaves to flash simultaneously. In small areas at indoor scenes and small outdoor scenes, this technique may be preferable to the painting with light technique. Impression Evidence Photography Impression evidence photography is about creating contrast between the surface on which the impression lies and the texture of the impression. Generally, photographing impressions involves the same technique as that used to find them at crime scenesoblique lighting. The positioning of the light dictates how well the texture of the evidence will appear in the photograph. As with all close-up forensic photography, photographs should be taken with and without scales and should capture the length and width of the entire impression. This is an experimental procedure, so there will be trial and error before obtaining the appropriate photographs. An off-camera attachable flash should be held first at an angle of approximately ten degrees from the perpendicular, but the specific situation may require a different angle to obtain acceptable results. Flash is recommended, but since flash can create shadows, the scale should always be placed along the long edge and short edges of the impression. For 3D impressions, photography is particularly important as a backup to casting, and three aspects of the impression must be captured: 1) an overview of the impression, 2) scales capturing the dimensions of the impressions on two sides, and 3) the detail of the impression. Since most 3D impressions occur outdoors, other concerns are also in play, such as temperature and sunlight. This requires employing tricks to capture as much of the impression detail as possible.

81

Close-up Photography The forensic relevance of close-up photographs is twofold: 1. Establish measurements of the item. 2. Preserve critical detail of the evidence as examined. Several commonly occurring types of evidence require closeup photographs: weapons, fingerprints, other impression evidence (footwear impressions, cartridge cases, or other items), and blood. Image in the Viewfinder The image of the photograph in the viewfinder must take up as much of the viewing area as possible. Scales Scales and their position are critical and must be included in close-up photographs. Close-up photographs are taken with and without scales.
Figure 11.6: LCD Viewfinder Image of Close-up Photograph

82

Shutterstock.com

FOR GREATER UNDERSTANDING

Questions
1. At the scene for establishing shots, what is a rule of thumb for where to focus initially in order to capture the maximum amount of information in focus? 2. In which of the following is it mandatory to use scales in photographs? a. Establishing photos b. Midrange photos c. Close-up photos d. None of the above

Suggested Reading
Shaler, Robert C. Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011.

Other Books of Interest

Blitzer, Herbert L., and Jack Jacobia. Forensic Digital Imaging and Photography. Burlington, MA: Academic Press, 2002. Kelby, Scott. Chapter 1. Pro Tips for Getting Really Sharp Photos. The Digital Photography Book. Vol. 1, p. 1. Berkeley, CA: Pearson Education/Peachpit Press, 2006. Lezano, Daniel. The Photography Bible: A Complete Guide for the 21st Century Photographer. P. 40. Cincinnati, OH: David and Charles Publishers, 2008. Redsicker, David R. The Practical Methodology of Forensic Photography. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2001. Staggs, Steven. Crime Scene and Evidence Photographers Guide. Wildomar, CA: Staggs Publishing, 1997.

Lecture 11 Notes
*Miller, Larry S., and Richard T. McEvoy, Jr. Police Photography. 6th ed. Burlington, MA: Anderson Publishing, 2006. Pp. 135168.

83

Lecture 12
The Written Record: Case Files, Scene Sketches, and Worksheets
The Suggested Reading for this lecture is Robert C. Shalers Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach, chapter 7: Case Files, Worksheets, Notes, and Sketches.

The official written record of the scene investigation is kept in a case file that includes the written, audio, and digital records of the scene investigative effort.
Case Files Sometimes referred to as a case jacket, the case file contains the official record of the investigation. The case file is where one finds investigators reports, sketches, worksheets, written notes, audio and photographic CDs, printed photographs, investigative leads, and witness statements. It is where investigators new to a case can review what had been done in the original investigation. The location, virtual or otherwise, where the work product of the crime scene units investigative activity is maintained. The definition above makes it clear that the case file can be maintained in a paper or an electronic format. It can reside in a file cabinet, cardboard boxes in the basement of the police station, or on a backed-up computers hard drive. Regardless, the files must be secure. If they were originally in a paper format, they should be converted to an electronic one that is non-corruptible. Electronic case files must be backed-up and the original files protected from hackers. Pages in the case file are numbered sequentially. If there are fifty-two pages, the first page would be either 1 of 52 or 1/52, with new additions added sequentially. A page added out of sequence at a later time receives a number indicating it was placed into the case file at that location. Corrections to page 135 should be inserted after page 135 and labeled 135A. New pages are added at the end of the case file. Worksheets Given the increased importance of electronic media, the term worksheets seems archaic. Still, worksheets fall into four basic categories: audio, handwritten notes, filled-out forms, and sketches. Worksheets are anything relevant to the investigation that is filled out, prepared, or recorded. These include investigative notes or thoughts and anything digitally recorded or typed into a computer. They include draft and final sketches. 84

Forms Forms represent a critical part of the official record. Each investigative agency has its own forms. Some agencies have detailed forms and others do not. Common forms employed include chain-of-custody, scene response, photographic, measurement logs, and quality assurance forms. They must be filled out completely, including case numbers, the initials of the person filling out the form, and other specified information. If the form has multiple pages, each page should be filled out and numbered sequentially.

Figure 12.1: Forms: Case Contact and Scene Response Logs

Forms standardize the work product.

Examples of forms used in the Pennsylvania State University crime scene investigation course are shown in Figure 12.1. The Case Contact Log is a record of individuals who were at the scene and specific comments about why they were there or other relevant information about them. The Scene Response Log is a record of those crime scene unit team members at the scene. The form records the times they arrived and left the scene. If the team responded to the scene more than once, the team leader would fill out a separate form each day the team was at the scene. The forms in Figure 12.2 document the control of evidence at the scene and where it goes after leaving the scene (for example, the police property room or the crime laboratory). The most important form is the Chain of Custody form, because it is the signature record of the evidences integrity. The crime scene team leaders responsibility is to ensure that each item of evidence collected has a documented signature history from the time it is collected and packaged at the scene to where it is eventually transported.
Figure 12.2: Evidence Control Forms

85

The signature trail must remain intact until the evidence is eventually destroyed, and there must be a record of that, too. A break in that history known as a break in the chaincompromises the integrity of the evidence and leaves it at risk of not being admissible in a court of law. The top part of the Chain of Custody form has the item number (given at the scene) and the description of each item collected at the scene. The bottom part shows the transfer of evidence of those involved in the transfer. The form on the bottom of Figure 12.2 is an example of an inventory log of items collected at the scene. It captures the sample ID (item number, which becomes the item ID entered on the Chain of Custody form) and information about the item. Additional forms are also used to capture the record of the crime scene units activity at the scene. For example, Figure 12.3 shows two forms used for documenting the collection of Figure 12.3: Impression Evidence Forms impression evidence. Each form captures critical information: the item number (the same number in the chain of custody form), the object on which the print (impression) was found and the method used to visualize it (unless it was a patent print), the location where the object was at the scene, the person who collected the impression, the method of how it was collected, and the person who photographed the impression and the method used. Mistakes Humans fill out forms, which means that mistakes are expected. Corrections are necessary and they have a specific format. Run a single line through the mistake. Write the correct information above the mistake. Place your initials and the date of the correction next to or above the correction. Never obliterate or white-out a mistake. Sketches Before there was photography, there was sketching, and it remains an essential skill. Sketches lay out the scene in a way that neither photographs nor video can. They provide an overview and the precise and/or relative location of evidence. It has been suggested* that sketching the 86

crime scene involves two separate actions: one artistic and the second analytical, which pinpoints the relative location of the elements of the scene. Gardner considers the latter analytical because it requires measurement of the boundaries and the elements at the scene, a process similar to mapping. Although no true analysis is involved, forensic sketching for the purposes is defined as follows: A marriage of drawing and making measurements of crime scene elements, the final rendering of which is a perspective that renders the scene understandable to the lay public and provides information to investigators. Typically, sketching occurs twice. Rough sketches (drafts) are done contemporaneously with the scene investigation, and they are discoverable as evidence in a legal proceeding. A final sketch, that is, a final rendering, is a cleaned-up version of the rough sketch; it, too, is discoverable. Sketching is among the first activities at the scene, and it occurs contempoA crime scene sketch rendered in a 3D raneously with photographing and CAD program from a rough drawing made at the scene. searching for and protecting fragile evidence. One of the first decisions the team leader has to make is where to begin the sketch. He has to make certain that the entire scene, including each critical item, is captured without interrupting the investigative process. Determining how to sketch important areas of the scene depends on the team leaders perceived importance of each item of evidence. There are items that require precise placement and others that do not. Sketches provide an overview of the scene and the relative relationship of evidence; they complement photo and video archiving by clarifying confusing details. They enhance investigators recall of the scene details when it comes time to testify in court or to review cold cases. They help to orient the scene layout to scientists/investigators, attorneys, the judge, and the jury. Sketching most effectively involves two people working together because it makes the process easier and faster: one measures, the other draws and records the data. Both sketches, the rough and the final, should include the following information. Address (place of sketch). Date and time. Temperature and weather conditions (sunny, cloudy, raining). North and south indicators. 87

The CAD Zone

 Name of sketchers: individuals who did the sketch. Case number. Notation of whether the sketch is rough or final. A legend to capture information in the sketch. There are different ways to make a sketch. One of the early methods was to use graph paper for both the rough and final sketches. The detail in the final sketch can use templates of furniture, bodies, weapons, and other evidence. Computer programs and 3D imaging systems speed the final sketch after entering measurement data: 3D imaging systems collect thousands of measurements in 360 degrees using infrared lasers. These measurements can be turned into 3D drawings using dedicated software. The problem with these systems is that they are slow and can restrict movement in the scene to areas not being imaged. Computer aided design (CAD) programs, some of which have been adapted for crime scene work, can convert rough measurements into final, polished sketches.

88

Shutterstock.com

FOR GREATER UNDERSTANDING

Questions
1. What is a case file? 2. How do you correct mistakes on forensic documents? a. Obliterate the mistake and write the correction above the obliteration. b. Mask the mistake with White-OutTM and write the correction over the mask. c. Draw a single line through the mistake and write the correction above. d. Draw a single line through the mistake. Write the correction and put your initials above the cross-out. e. Draw a single line through the mistake and then write the correction, your initials, and the date above the cross-out. 3. What is the importance of crime scene sketches?

Suggested Reading
Shaler, Robert C. Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011.

Other Books of Interest

Fish, Jacqueline T., Larry S. Miller, and Michael C. Braswell. Chapter 3: Documenting the Crime Scene. Crime Scene Investigation. Bethesda, MD: LexisNexis/Anderson Publishing, 2007. Fisher, Barry A.J. Chapter 5: Processing the Crime Scene. Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation. 7th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, LLC, 2004.

Lecture 12 Notes
* Gardner, Ross M. Practical Crime Scene Investigation and Reconstruction. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2004

89

Lecture 13
Sketch Types and Pinpointing Evidence at the Scene
The Suggested Reading for this lecture is Robert C. Shalers Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach, chapter 7: Case Files, Worksheets, Notes, and Sketches.

How do crime scene investigators archive the scene using appropriate sketching and measuring methods, whether the scene is indoor or outdoor?
Sketch Types Over the years, investigators have devised various ways to sketch a scene. Many of these have names, which for our purposes are considered named sketches. The Plan Sketch The plan sketch is simply an Figure 13.1: Students Indoor Plan Sketch overview of the scene, and it is the simplest scene sketch for a jury to understand. It is essentially required for all crime scenes. It gives an accurate overview of the scene and the relative location of evidence observed. The rough plan sketch is made at the scene and is not drawn to scale. The final sketch is prepared at a later time and must be drawn to scale. A partial plan sketch can be made of the individual components of the scene, such as walls with bullet holes or bloodstain patterns, because they are not typically considered part of the floor plan per se. Cross Projection or Exploded Sketch The cross projection sketch is essentially a flattened view of the scene, much like a box with its sides, top, and bottom pressed into a single plane. These are useful for scenes where the walls and ceilings have important probative evidence. They are appropriate for rooms but not for an entire building. 90

Figure 13.2: Cross Projection Sketch

Elevation Sketch Elevation sketches are, in essence, plan sketches of areas of a scene. They document a side view of one part of a scene, such as a wall or a ceiling, that might have important visual evidence. Measurements should be recorded on the sketch to indicate the exact location and, in the case of a bloodstain pattern, its size. An elevation sketch might also show the position of bullet defects. If measurements make the sketch too cluttered, then they should be recorded in a separate log. Perspective Sketch: 3D Rendering of the Scene These sketches depict the three-dimensional aspects of the scene. This type of sketch requires artistic skills, if done free-hand, or 3D software. Outdoor Sketches Outdoor sketches are essentially plan sketches and thus are typically overviews of the crime scene. They illustrate the location of evidence such as the debris field and body locations after an airliner crash. Measuring the Scene Determining the dimensions of the scene and pinpointing evidence is a critical aspect of sketching. It is commonly accomplished using tape measures, infrared laser 3D imaging instrumentation, or wheel measuring devices that click off measurements as one rolls a wheel along the perimeter of a large area. The measurements themselves must be precise enough to allow someone to return to the scene at a later date and understand the placement of evidence in its original location. Measurements are also critical for investigators who need to rework the case after it turns cold.

91

The most accurate and also the most tedious measuring method is triangulation. Such preciseness should be reserved for measuring critically probative evidence, such as a weapon lying on the floor. Other items at the scene do not need to be fixed so precisely, except to note their location relative to a fixed object at the scene. The size of the piece of furniture fixes its location. Measuring outdoor scenes employs the same principles as those described below for fixing the location of evidence indoors. The main difference can be the size of the scene. Locating Objects at the Scene Locating objects at a scene is typically done using the following measuring methods or variations of these. Triangulation Method Triangulation is accomplished by measuring the object relative to two fixed, immovable points at the scene. In Figure 13.3, the X is a knife and Y is a cigarette butt. Points A and B are corners at opposite ends of a wall. The distance between them is measured. These are the fixed points used in the triangulation method. The distances from X and Y to both A and B fix these items at the scene. Baseline Method In this method, an object is located to a perpendicular dropped to a line, such as a wall. The distance from point B to where the perpendicular falls on the line between A and B and the distance from that point to the evidence fixes the location of that evidence. A variation, the modified baseline method, employs angles from a fixed object instead of the perpendicular. Here, instead of using the perpendicular, the angle from the evidence to the reference line A and B is measured, as is the distance from the evidence to the line. 92
Figure 13.3: Triangulation Method of Measuring a Scene

Figure 13.4: Baseline Method of Measuring a Scene

Polar Coordinate Method Another variation of the modified baseline method is known as the polar coordinate method. This uses a virtual line fixed by cardinal directions: north, south, east, or west. The initial fixed point can be a GPS location or a fixed object. A virtual baseline fixes the location of evidence in conjunction with triangulation or baseline measurements made to items of evidence. So whether the measurement runs from the object to be measured to a virtual or real line, or whether it is 90 degrees or some other angle, doesnt matter. The object is fixed at the scene. Typically an outdoor method, its major attributes are listed below. Evidence scattered over open areas (airline crashes; bombing scenes) Need direct line-of-sight; cannot be hindered (woods or other objects) Uses surveying techniques > Total Station or other 3D imaging systems > GPS coordinates > Laser or IR measuring devices Start at single datum point (GPS; triangulation to fixed point) Measuring Outdoor Scenes Outdoor scene measurements are best accomplished by combining the polar coordinate method with triangulation and/or the baseline methods. An issue with outdoor scenes concerns finding fixed points of reference because they are not always readily apparent or available.

Figure 13.5: Baseline Method of Measuring an Outdoor Scene

93

In Figure 13.6, the first point is fixed by triangulating to a point in the scene from a house. Subsequent measurements of evidence at the scene are made from a virtual line (actually a tape measure laid on the ground) through the scene, where the direction of the line is a cardinal designation: N, S, E, or W. Measurements off that line can be made using either triangulation, the baseline method, or combinations of triangulation and baseline methods.
Figure 13.6: Triangulation Method of Measuring an Outdoor Scene

Measuring Outdoor Scenes Using a Rose Compass or Azimuth Board The Rose Compass is an alternative method for measuring items at an outdoor scene. An example illustrating how to use the Compass Rose/Azimuth Board is illustrated in Figure 13.7. The Rose Compass is useful for large, open areas, but it can also be used for more closed areas. Fix the compass to the ground by staking the center hole with an appropriate dowel and the four corner holes. Triangulate middle hole and one corner hole to two fixed objects at the scene (or GPS coordinates if appropriate fixed objects are not available) so that the compass can be returned to its original location at some future date. Run a line (tape measure) from the center hole (secured by an appropriate stake) to each item of evidence. Measure the distance from the compass to the item of evidence and record the value in a log. Also record the degree the tape passes over. Since the Rose Compass is marked in degrees (0 to 360) the precise location of each item of evidence is fixed as X number of inches (or feet) at Y degrees from the center of the Rose Compass. 94

Figure 13.7: Using the Rose Compass to Measure an Outdoor Scene

An example of students investigating a wooded scene is shown in Figures 13.7 and 13.8. The student crime scene teams were faced with searching the scene for evidence of a serial killer. After completing the search and marking evidence, the students measured the scene. They chose the Rose Compass because it gave them a fixed reference point at the scene. In choosing the Rose Compass, they subsequently realized that they had a problem: trees and bushes at the scene interfered with the straight line measurements. They solved the problem by using the Rose Compass in two different locations after bisecting the area. The photograph on the left in Figure 13.8 shows what the scene looked like before the investigation began. The photograph on the right shows evidence in a plastic bag they found.
Figure 13.8: Wooded Scene and Evidence Located at the Scene

95

Robert C. Shaler

FOR GREATER UNDERSTANDING

Questions
1. What is the difference between triangulation and baseline methods of measuring a scene? 2. What is a plan sketch? 3. Which is the best way to sketch and measure an outdoor scene? a. Use a polar-coordinate method and a triangulation measurement method. b. Use a plan sketch and a triangulation measurement method. c. Use a polar-coordinate method and a combination of triangulation and baseline measurement methods. d. None of the above.

Suggested Reading
Shaler, Robert C. Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011.

Other Books of Interest

Fish, Jacqueline T., Larry S. Miller, and Michael C. Braswell. Chapter 3: Documenting the Crime Scene. Crime Scene Investigation. Bethesda, MD: LexisNexis/Anderson Publishing, 2007. Fisher, Barry A.J. Chapter 5: Processing the Crime Scene. Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation. 7th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, LLC, 2004.

96

Lecture 14
Fingerprinting: The Intellectual Ingredients
The Suggested Reading for this lecture is Robert C. Shalers Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach, chapter 9: Fingerprints at the Crime Scene: The Intellectual Ingredients.

An intelligent approach to fingerprinting at the scene is necessary to design an effective latent print development strategy.
Fingerprints are fragile, and the techniques used to visualize them can easily damage friction ridge detail. For example, powder dusting is commonly employed, but a heavy or a not-so-gentle technique can affect the quality of the resulting print, as can overdusting.1 The responsibility of the crime scene team leader is to preserve the original print detail as it was left at the scene, so using new or novel techniques without employing a scientific approach is risky. A Reasoned, Scientific Approach Scientists and investigators have spent decades devising methods to develop and enhance fingerprints at scenes and in latent print laboratories. The target of these investigations, the components of the print residue, has been the subject of intense scientific inquiry. The result has culminated in a menu of print-development methods. Modern scene investigators and latent print scientists understand that the current print-development paradigm is surface driven, with each method having its particular dogmatic approach: Porous surfaces have a preferred, menu-driven group of methods, as do the nonporous. On-Scene Printing: Menu-Driven versus Logic-Based Approaches The fingerprint paradigm is a menu-driven approach designed for nonscientists to know when to employ certain methods to minimize errors. This approach has merits born from a wealth of experience and success. But should there have been more successes? Certainly! How many latent fingerprints at those crimes were treated improperly or how many unsuccessful attempts had there been versus those that were successful? Fingerprint development methods have laboratory and on-scene applications; most are laboratory-based. Certainly, there are reasons for developing/enhancing prints in the field, and whether this is the best course of action depends on the dynamics of the investigation. Should the evidence be collected, packaged, and taken to the laboratory? Will a delay impair the timeline of the investigation? 97

There are always items that cannot be easily collected: the door jamb or a window that was the entry point to the scene. At an outdoor crime scene, it might be better to collect and package all transferrable printable evidence and take it to the laboratory, especially if the weather is deteriorating and protecting the evidence at the scene is impossible. Another consideration is time. All scenes have time constraints, but if processing the scene quickly is critical, then regardless of the logic for developing prints there, transportable fingerprint evidence should go to the laboratory.
Figure 14.1: On-Scene Considerations for a Fingerprint Development Strategy

If the decision is to process prints on-scene, there are important considerations: surface, resources, environment, age of the print, amount and quality of print residue present, scene investigators knowledge, experience, and the technology available and its limitations. Most investigators choose dusting, believing this to be the best, easiest, and quickest way to obtain results. For a given circumstance, that may be true. But no print development should occur until the nuances of the scene have been properly considered. Surface Characteristics The fingerprint development paradigm considers first the surfaces: porous, nonporous, or semiporous. Even these are simplistic because other considerations are often not spelled out. For example, one concern is how a particular surface has been protected (was it painted using matte, semi-gloss, or gloss paint?). Or is it one of the newer finishes with texture? If textured, how much depth is there? Porosity is another consideration. Another is color. What development methods are applicable if it is dark or light colored? Which technology is best suited giving the most contrast: physical methods, chemical methods, imaging technology, or topology acquisition? Other surface nuances are common, such as the best way to approach fingerprints on cornered surfaces. Environmental Conditions and the Age of the Print The length of time a print has been exposed to an environment should affect decisions concerning a development strategy. No one questions that heat, humidity, pollution, UV radiation, dust, and time affect print quality. If it is hot and humid, dusting or Super Glue fuming may have the best

98

chance of success. If the temperature is moderate (say 50oF) and the humidity is between 20 and 90 percent, the same may be true. If it is winter and the humidity is low and the house overheated, the print could be dry (dehydrated print residue) and unresponsive to traditional dusting or even Super Glue fuming. Studies designed to explore the Super Glue fuming reaction in eccrine prints have shown that lactate in the residue is the initiator of the Super Glue fuming reaction. If lactate is gone, whether because of excess heat (greater than 50oC) or from UV radiation, Super Glue fuming will not work.2 The Tools The next decision concerns the tools necessary and available to do the job properly. This decision balances what can be done at the scene versus the tools available in the laboratory. Laboratory work is usually done in a more controlled environment, which should lead to better results. Never sacrifice quality for expediency without a top-notch reason. Resources Success may well depend on available resources. If the crime scene unit can only dust, alternative strategies are nearly nonexistent. If the unit can only dust at the scene but has additional capabilities at the latent print laboratory, there is an alternative. Technology and Its Limitations All technology has limitations. However, most scene investigators have little understanding of the science underlying the technology. This means that there is little understanding of when the science will be successful and when it will not. Most applications of science in the field are employed in routine situations for which the technology had been developed. However, circumstances crop up where applying a particular technique may not work as planned, if at all. Such failure might not be understood by the investigator, and the inclination is to blame failure on the quality of the print rather than an inappropriately applied technology. Logic Locating fingerprints leading to an eventual successful development and lift is as much an intellectual exercise as it is physical, and having the best technology does not guarantee success. The scene scientist/investigator must know where and when to employ technology. Successfully finding probative prints involves a myriad of skills, the most important being logic, experience, and knowledge. Understanding the scene environment and the nature of the crime gives experience, critical thinking, and thinking out-ofthe-box a reasoned approach to an effective strategy. This is the only formula for success.

99

Knowledge of the Science Understanding which techniques are available for developing fingerprints and how they work in specific circumstances is also critical. Knowing and understanding the dynamics of crime scene investigation are additional ingredients for understanding how evidence talks and why this translates into knowing the likely location of fingerprints. Experience Experienced scene scientists/investigators are better at developing and finding prints than a novice or a student. Experience also rules when it comes to employing science and using technology. Critical Thinking This is the process of assessing and digesting information the scene presents and then distilling it so probative evidence pops out and speaks: An open window may or may not be related, and if the former, developed fingerprints on the windowsill are irrelevant. The area of a struggle will say that someone fell onto the floor and that there might be usable prints. Bloodstains on the floor in the kitchen might be significant. Eating utensils might have prints that can be important. Bloodstains in the kitchen might be irrelevant, if they occurred because the deceased suffered a lacerated finger while chopping onionscheck the body for recent finger wounds (the ME might decide this is a defensive wound). A partially chopped onion on the cutting board, some of it mixed with a drop of blood, and a bloody knife lying on the floor should scream No relevance. A bloodstain out of context from other blood at the scene should also scream: Perp injured. Certainly the blood itself is a critical piece of evidence, but it is likely not the only evidence in that area. Out-of-the-Box Reasoning This is different from critical thinking, albeit an extension of it. Few individuals process information like this because it is a process of thinking critically and then translating that into an investigative strategy that leads directly to the most probative evidence. It is also a process of marrying seemingly unrelated information and developing a hypothesis of what happened. The lone, out-of-place bloodstain mentioned above is an example. Innovative thinking involves more than experience. It is, in fact, a mind that works on a different level, one that creates order from chaos. These individuals see evidentiary links that others miss. It is a gift. 100

FOR GREATER UNDERSTANDING

Questions
1. Explain the specific scene considerations that the scene investigator should consider before embarking on a fingerprint development strategy. 2. Explain the environmental considerations the scene investigator should consider before embarking on a fingerprint development strategy.

Suggested Reading
Shaler, Robert C. Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011.

Other Books of Interest

Champod, Christophe, Chris Lennard, Pierre Margot, and Milutin Stoilovic. Chapter 4: Fingerprint Detection Techniques. Pp. 136138. Fingerprints and Other Ridge Skin Impressions. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2004. Lee, Henry C., and R.E. Gaensslen. Chapter 4: Methods of Latent Fingerprint Development. Pp. 108113. Advances in Fingerprint Technology. 2nd ed. Eds. Henry C. Lee and R.E. Gaensslen. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2004. Olsen, Robert D., Sr. Chapter V: Latent Fingerprint Powder Techniques. Pp. 209240. Scotts Fingerprint Mechanics. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1978.

Lecture 14 Notes
1. James, Jonathan D., Anthony Pounds, and Brian Wilshire. Obliteration of Latent Prints. Journal of Forensic Science. 36(5), 1991, pp. 13761386. 2. De Paoli, G., S.A. Lewis Sr., E.L. Schuette, L.A. Lewis, R.M. Connaster, and T. Farkas. Photo- and Thermal-degradation Studies of Select Eccrine Fingerprint Constituents. Journal of Forensic Science. 55(4), 2010, pp. 962969.

101

COURSE MATERIALS
Suggested Reading Shaler, Robert C. Crime Scene Forensics: A Scientific Method Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2011. Other Books of Interest Blitzer, Herbert L., and Jack Jacobia. Forensic Digital Imaging and Photography. Burlington, MA: Academic Press, 2002. Champod, Christophe, Chris Lennard, Pierre Margot, and Milutin Stoilovic. Fingerprints and Other Ridge Skin Impressions. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2004. Chisum, W. Jerry, and Brent E. Turvey, eds. Crime Reconstruction. Burlington, MA: Academic Press, 2007. Fish, Jacqueline T., Larry S. Miller, and Michael C. Braswell. Crime Scene Investigation. Bethesda, MD: LexisNexis/Anderson Publishing, 2007. Fisher, Barry A.J. Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation. 7th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, LLC, 2004. Gardner, Ross M. Practical Crime Scene Processing and Investigation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2007. Geberth, Vernon J. Practical Homicide Investigation: Tactics, Procedures, and Forensic Techniques. 4th ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2006. Inman, Keith, and Norah Rudin. Principles and Practice of Criminalistics: The Profession of Forensic Science. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2000. Kelby, Scott. The Digital Photography Book. Vol. 1, p. 12. Berkeley, CA: Pearson Education/Peachpit Press, 2006. Lee, Henry C., and R.E. Gaensslen. Advances in Fingerprint Technology. 2nd ed. Eds. Henry C. Lee and R.E. Gaensslen. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2004. Lee, Henry C., Timothy Palmbach, and Marilyn T. Miller. Henry Lees Crime Scene Handbook. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press, 2005. Lezano, Daniel. The Photography Bible: A Complete Guide for the 21st Century Photographer. P. 40. Cincinnati, OH: David and Charles Publishers, 2008. Olsen, Robert D., Sr. Scotts Fingerprint Mechanics. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1978. Redsicker, David R. The Practical Methodology of Forensic Photography. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2001.

102

Saferstein, Richard. Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science. 9th ed. Old Tappan, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall, 2004. Shaler, Robert C. Who They Were: Inside the World Trade Center DNA Story: The Unprecedented Effort to Identify the Missing. New York: Free Press, 2005. Staggs, Steven. Crime Scene and Evidence Photographers Guide. Wildomar, CA: Staggs Publishing, 1997. These books are available online through www.modernscholar.com or by calling Recorded Books at 1-800-636-3399.

103

RECORDED BOOKS
The Modern Scholar offers the following courses in law, law enforcement, and crime fiction.

THE LAW OF THE LAND: A History of the Supreme Court

Professor Kermit L. HallUtah State University The Supreme Court of the United States represents our most unusual and least understood branch of government. Unlike the other branches, the high court marches to an overtly legal drummer, one that demands there be cases and controversies, there be lawyers who function as adversaries, and that all arguments be made in open court. In the end, the Court is a living, breathing institution whose members have as often as not either been vilified or praised for both the quality of their legal reasoning and the political impact of their decisions. This course is about the high court, its justices, its traditions, and, most importantly, its impact on the American Republic.

FUNDAMENTAL CASES: The Twentieth-Century Courtroom Battles That Changed Our Nation
Professor Alan M. Dershowitz The courtroom trial has fascinated human beings from the beginning of recorded history. Trials provide a unique window into American history and the sense of Americas enduring commitment to law. Whats a great trial? People will often say the trial of the moment. But those trials are often not enduring. Esteemed professor and civil liberties lawyer Alan M. Dershowitz looks at history through the prism of several important trials. Each of these trials presents a dramatic snapshot of the nation at the time in which it occurred.

PHILOSOPHY AND THE LAW: How Judges Reason

Professor Stephen MathisWheaton College Do judges deduce their decisions from legal rules and principles, or do they decide cases based on what is fair given the facts at hand? The latter view, held by Legal Realists, serves as the starting point for Professor Stephen Mathis eyeopening look at how judges reason. In this compelling lecture series, the esteemed professor addresses such issues as whether the law is distinct from morality. Professor Mathis also attempts to identify a view that offers guidance to judges in deciding cases, and one that will provide the tools people need to evaluate the interpretations and decisions judges make.

DETECTIVE FICTION: From Victorian Sleuths to the Present

Professor M. Lee AlexanderThe College of William and Mary From its own mysterious origins, through the Victorian sleuths and the Golden Age of the genre (the 1920s through the 1940s), and to the present day, detective fiction, mysteries, and spy thrillers have consistently topped bestseller lists around the world. Professor M. Lee Alexander provides listeners with a lively discussion of groundbreaking authors from Edgar Allan Poe and Arthur Conan Doyle to Agatha Christie, Ian Fleming, and modern writers such as Nevada Barr and Jonathan Kellerman.

These courses are available online through www.modernscholar.com or by calling Recorded Books at 1-800-636-3399. 104