An Approach to Crime Scene Investigation
E-Book, Englisch, 198 Seiten
ISBN: 978-0-12-802094-4
Verlag: Elsevier Science & Techn.
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)
I worked for the Pasadena (CA) Police Department for 24 years and was a founding member of the forensic unit when it became civilianized. During my tenure, I attained a high level of expertise in several areas including crime scene investigation, evidence processing, fingerprint comparisons, crime scene reconstruction, and courtroom testimony. Prior to retirement, I became the primary trainer of all new hires for crime scene processing, lab processing of evidence, and training to competency in print comparisons. I also worked several years as a part-time in instructor at a local forensic school, with several students going on to employment and current service in the field in various agencies throughout Southern California and one in Michigan. My career included work in several high profile cases such as the 1993 Halloween Homicide and the assisting in the Glendale Train Wreck of 2005. During my tenure, I began work on the Instructor Development Course from the California Peace Officer Standard and Training (California POST) and recently completed the Level 3 Certification. I will be applying for the Master Instructor course in 2015. After retirement from Pasadena, I worked for BAE Systems in the JEFF Program (Joint Expeditionary Forensics Facilities) and deployed to Afghanistan as a contractor for a total of 21 months. This was in support of the Coalition mission. I worked in different labs as an evidence processor as well as a fingerprint expert. I also was privileged to be an instructor of Afghan nationals from the Ministry of Interior of the government of Afghanistan. My field of instruction included developing their expertise in fingerprint comparisons as well as giving them tools to be trainers of future examiners. This relationship also led to the sponsorship of the first members from Afghanistan to the International Association for Identification, 2011-2012. During my employ, I passed the required elements and became a Certified Latent Print Examiner (CLPE). Prior to my career in forensics I attained a Master's degree in Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary, one of the top seminaries in the world and worked as a ministry professional, obtaining an ordination from the American Baptist Church in 1983. I hold a 1st degree Black Belt in Hapkido. Finally, my first job was as a park construction worker in my hometown of Fort Collins, Colorado. A park I constructed, 95% solo, can be seen on Goggle Maps as Blevins Park, Ft Collins, Colorado.
Autoren/Hrsg.
Weitere Infos & Material
1;Front Cover;1
2;Evidence Found;4
3;Copyright;5
4;Contents;6
5;Foreword;10
6;Preface;12
7;Acknowledgments;16
8;Introduction;18
9;List of Figures;22
10;Chapter 1 - The Evidence Search—Where It All Begins;24
10.1;FIFTEEN MINUTES OF PLANNING.CAN SAVE HOURS OF PROBLEMS;27
10.2;INTENTION IS A CONSCIOUS.CHOICE NOT A DEFAULT SETTING;29
10.3;CASE STUDY 1: CARTRIDGES? WHAT CARTRIDGES?;29
11;Chapter 2 - Evidence Search Techniques—Tips and Tricks;36
11.1;SITUATION 1—KNOWING WHERE EVIDENCE IS NOT;37
11.2;SITUATION 2—FIELD TESTING OF THEORIES;41
11.3;SITUATION 3—GRASS, SHELL CASINGS, AND NIGHT;45
11.4;SITUATION 4—SUSPECTS WEARING GLOVES (LATENT PRINTS);47
11.5;SITUATION 5—SUSPECTS WEARING GLOVES (DNA);49
11.6;SITUATION 6—MAGNETIC POWDER USAGE: METAL;49
11.7;SITUATION 7—NIGHTTIME EVIDENCE SEARCH;51
11.8;SITUATION 8—NIGHTTIME EVIDENCE SEARCH;56
11.9;SITUATION 9—EVIDENCE SEARCH INDOORS;60
12;Chapter 3 - Sequential Processing: Determining Evidence Value;64
12.1;DEFINITIONS;69
12.2;CRIME SCENE LAYOUT ANALYSIS;71
13;Chapter 4 - Sequential Processing: Evaluating Evidence and Process;76
13.1;DEFINITIONS;77
13.2;APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPTS TO THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS;78
13.3;CASE STUDY 1: A COLLISION OF RESOURCES;82
14;Chapter 5 - Sequential Processing: Crime Scene Briefing;86
14.1;CASE STUDY 1: THE VIDEO;87
14.2;CASE STUDY 2: STEP BY STEP;91
15;Chapter 6 - Evidence Processing: The Decision-Making Process;96
15.1;CASE STUDY 1: A REQUEST FOR DNA;97
16;Chapter 7 - The Schema of Criminal Investigations: Knowing and Not Knowing;106
16.1;CASE STUDY 1: UNDERSTANDING OUR OWN SCOPE OF KNOWLEDGE;108
16.2;CASE STUDY 1: RESEARCHING THE TOOL;110
16.3;CASE STUDY 1: RESEARCHING THE MONEY;114
16.4;CASE STUDY 2: REDEFINING WHAT MAKES AN EXPERT;116
17;Chapter 8 - The CSI Effect: A New Approach;122
17.1;ANALYSIS AND HISTORY OF THE PHENOMENON;123
17.2;RESPONDING TO THE PHENOMENON;128
17.3;RESPONDING: LET THE AIR OUT OF THE BALLOON BUT DON’T POP IT;130
17.4;RESPONDING: QUESTIONS: A DISTRACTING OPPORTUNITY;130
17.5;RESPONDING: FORENSIC TRANSLATION;131
17.6;CASE STUDY 1: THE RECALCITRANT ASSISTANT;132
18;Chapter 9 - Emergencies: Plan, Respond, Create;136
18.1;CASE STUDY 1: THE NEED IS URGENT AND THE TIME IS NOW;140
19;Chapter 10 - Courtroom Techniques—Old and New;144
19.1;ARE “YES” AND “NO” SUFFICIENT FOR TODAY?;146
19.2;PLANNING FOR THE FIRST IMPRESSION;146
19.3;WHO ARE YOU TALKING TO?;148
19.4;USE THE RIGHT WORDS AT THE RIGHT TIME;149
19.5;PRINT COMPARISON TESTIMONY: AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH;150
19.6;100% CERTAINTY IN CONCLUSIONS;152
19.7;DISCOMFORT AND BOREDOM: DO NOT SHOW THEM;153
19.8;PUBLIC SPEAKING: YOUR SECRET TERROR?;154
19.9;THE “OTHER” SIDE;154
19.10;THE PROSECUTION;156
19.11;TESTIFYING TO MISTAKES;157
19.12;CLERICAL ERRORS;157
19.13;PROCEDURAL ERRORS;158
19.14;SUBSTANTIVE ERRORS;158
19.15;CLERICAL ERROR TESTIMONY;159
19.16;PROCEDURAL ERROR TESTIMONY;160
19.17;WHEN TESTIMONY TRIES TO DEFLECT THE ERROR;161
19.18;SUBSTANTIVE ERROR TESTIMONY;163
19.19;EXPLAINING JUSTIFIED BUT MISUNDERSTOOD DECISIONS;164
19.20;TESTIFYING TO EVIDENCE CONTAMINATION;165
19.21;HYPOTHETICALS: WHAT REALLY IS POSSIBLE?;165
20;Chapter 11 - Ongoing Challenges;168
20.1;REFLECTIONS ON THE FIRST PUBLIC MEETING OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON FORENSIC SCIENCE;174
20.2;APPLIED SCIENCE VERSUS PURE SCIENCE;176
21;Chapter 12 - Miscellany;180
21.1;DO’S AND DON’TS FOR FIRST RESPONDERS;181
21.2;ADDITIONAL TIPS AND TRICKS;188
22;Chapter 13 - Final Thoughts;192
22.1;A NOTE OF ENCOURAGEMENT;193
23;Index;196
Chapter 2 Evidence Search Techniques—Tips and Tricks
Abstract
Maximizing our natural limitations. Nine recurring problematic situations in crime scene evidence search with tips and tricks to mitigate those situations: (1) Determining where evidence is and is not; (2) Field testing of theories; (3) Dealing with shell casings in grass at night; (4) Suspects wearing gloves; (5) DNA from areas already processed for latents; (6) Using magnetic powder on metal surfaces; (7) Review of old technique for night searching; (8) Introduction of new method for night search aka the Miranda technique; (9) Indoor search when there are no lights. Keywords
Dense shrubbery; Magnetic powder; Night searches; Tips and tricks Maximizing our natural limitations Chapter Outline Situation 1—Knowing Where Evidence Is Not 14 Situation 2—Field Testing of Theories 18 Situation 3—Grass, Shell Casings, and Night 22 Situation 4—Suspects Wearing Gloves (Latent Prints) 24 Situation 5—Suspects Wearing Gloves (DNA) 26 Situation 6—Magnetic Powder Usage: Metal 26 Situation 7—Nighttime Evidence Search 28 Review of One Old Technique 28 Situation 8—Nighttime Evidence Search 33 Introduction of a New Technique 33 Situation 9—Evidence Search Indoors 37 When the Only Light Source Is Your Own Flashlight 37 Intentionality, planning, and direct affirmative statements are sound concepts that can support the techniques applied to a criminal investigation, maximizing the human resources available to that task. I believe the reader will agree that the best planning still needs the best means to accomplish any stated goals. There is no evidence unless we find it and while the basic approaches, as noted in the previous chapter, form the foundation for all evidence searches, there are special situations that have been shown to negatively impact our efforts. I will delineate a few of these situations that I have found recurring over numerous investigations and offer simple solutions to those situations. Situation 1—Knowing Where Evidence Is Not
When we are searching for evidence it can be helpful to be aware of areas where we know evidence will NOT be found. Some things are obvious, such as the bottom of a swimming pool (that has just been cleaned) for latent prints. Looking there for prints is, of course, a ridiculous idea, but it does prove the point that there are, in fact, areas of a scene that can, in good conscience and best practices, be ignored. Any judge or jury would not question that decision, but there are other, less obvious, situations than can be problematic in our approach. The application of logic and deduction is an invaluable tool in those situations. Awareness of this concept can help the crime scene investigator focus efforts in productive areas and avoid the unnecessary expenditure of time and energy. As an example, let us examine a very common evidence search situation: that of determining and addressing the path of access and egress of a suspect to a given scene. When the path of a suspect is in the process of being determined, with the obvious goal of seeing if the individual left anything of evidentiary value during their traverse of an area, evaluating the area itself is a value that is often overlooked. Examine the following two photographs. In the first photograph (Figure 2.1) the concrete is free of debris and the dense shrubbery has a normal appearance. In the second photograph (Figure 2.2) one can see debris on the ground in front of the shrubbery and there is a slight visual difference in the shadows from the sunlight. The photographs were taken at midday and were one minute apart. Figures 2.3 and 2.4 show the debris field in greater detail, as well as a view of the physical state of the shrubbery in the second photograph. It is clear that there was a disturbance in the shrubbery caused by the passage of a physical object against it or over it. If we found this at a scene then our efforts could reliably focus on this area for possible evidence caused or left by the perpetrator. Absent these clear indicators, we can see that any detailed examination of this area is highly unlikely to yield any significant results. If this is in the area of the crime scene do we ignore it? Not necessarily, but based on this analysis (which takes much less time to process mentally than it does to write it or read about it) we could reliably place this area near the bottom of our list of “things to do” at a crime scene. There is no indication that the dense shrubbery is an area of suspect activity and, therefore, does not merit our primary efforts. Many times, the lack of this analysis causes the crime scene investigator to pursue all areas equally, causing an unnecessary expenditure of time and resources when a moment of analysis can focus the efforts of those involved, yielding results that are of greater value to the investigation.
Figure 2.1 Dense shrubbery, undisturbed.
Figure 2.2 Dense shrubbery after physical disturbance.
Figure 2.3 Detailed side view of Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.4 Indentation in shrubbery, physical disturbance. Situation 2—Field Testing of Theories
I had a crime scene conundrum. It was a late night scene at the rear of a bank. There was, naturally, an ATM attached to the building with a ramp leading away from it toward the parking lot. At the bottom of that ramp a shooting resulting in death had occurred. The victim had as many wounds as there were expended casings on the ground and there were no exit wounds. The real question area was that, while the casings were all of the same caliber, four were in a group within 18 in of each other and one was over 6 ft away. All of the entry wounds to the victim were in the front. This led to numerous attempts to reconstruct the sequence of events, especially since witnesses who had heard the shots all insisted that all shots were fired in rapid succession. How does one explain the “stray” casing that is so far away from the others? Did we have two shooters, which was the favored theory at the time? Were the witnesses wrong as to the sequence of shots? Of course, that would mean that they were ALL wrong, a concept that is not impossible but requires a certain “leap of faith” for any investigator. Movement by the shooter was possible but this called for a rapid movement from one spot to another to cover over 6 ft and, depending on how one read the evidence, either the shooter shot several times, moved, and then shot once more or the other way around, all with great rapidity. Two shooters worked and we would have to wait until arrests to determine why one shot only once and the other shot multiple times but the placements were at odds with the apparent entry angles of the victims wounds. A conundrum that, possibly, would have to wait until a coroner’s report and a hoped for ATM video before a resolution could hope to be entertained. However, my partner and I noticed that the surface on which the shell casings were resting was different than the parking lot surface. The first photo (Figure 2.5) is concrete with small smooth stones inserted for texture and consistent with the original surface of the scene referenced here. The second photo (Figure 2.6) is typical of asphalt in roads and parking lots. The expended casings were all on the area that had concrete similar to that depicted in the first photograph. We reasoned that an empty shell casing, absent its load of gunpowder and projectile, would bounce and that there may be a correlation that explains the shell casing placement at rest. We decided to conduct a brief on-scene experiment. Using a retractable ballpoint pen, we depressed the top to “load” the spring and dropped it from a height of approximately 4 ft so that it would land on its top and cause it to depress and actuate the spring, approximating the spring that might occur from an empty shell casing with the energy from an ejection from a firearm. We were not looking for an exact replication of ejection results but, instead, were seeking what could be called a proof of concept.
Figure 2.5 Pebbled concrete surface.
Figure 2.6 Typical asphalt surface. We conducted this experiment on the asphalt and found that the pen would come to rest within a radius of 12 to 14 in from the point of impact. This is illustrated in Figure 2.7. The pen would also behave very predictably in that it would bounce once, with no turnovers of any sort, and the only random action was the direction. After conducting this same experiment on the concrete surface (away from the immediate scene but the same pebbled concrete) we found that the results were inconsistent and unpredictable. This is illustrated in Figure 2.8. At times the pen would simply come to an immediate rest with no bounce. At other times it would bounce at odd and unpredictable angles away from the point of impact. At one...
