The Kent County Sheriff’s Department has two openings for crime scene positions. For more details and to apply visit: https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/kentcountymi/jobs/3841009/crime-scene-specialist
Call for participants
We have received a request for participants in a bloodstain research project. Details are attached. If you are interested in assisting Ms. Hook, her contact info is at the bottom of the document.
Hi to ICSIA Members from New Editor of Newsletters
Hello to the membership and I pray that everyone is doing well in these very difficult times. We all know how valuable and honorable our service to the public is so let’s take some time to share our experiences and learn from one another.
I’m encouraging everyone to send some material to me for publication in the newsletter. Send a photo of you at work with a caption, or send in a tip that could help make us all better investigators.
We’re lucky to have one of the most interesting and dynamic careers that exists and advances in technology keep coming and making things more exciting. Always do your best even though quite often our conditions are the worst! That’s why it’s essential to share and learn together so that we can make the best of any situation.
Seriously though, where else can you go to work dressed like this?
President’s Message, Summer 2020
We are trying some new things this go around, including recording the President’s message. You can view the message here: https://youtu.be/lHvn9PXaaNA
Google Meet link for Membership Meeting- Monday August 17th at 7pm Eastern: meet.google.com/wou-qpou-ttq
Daryl Clemens, ICSIA President
An Unusual Indicator of Scene Staging
Edward E. Hueske
Criminalistics Program Coordinator
Department of Criminal Justice
University of North Texas
Key words: Break Free©, crime scene, death investigation, firearm, staging, unintentional discharge.
Abstract: Indicators of staging are something every investigator should be on the lookout for at crime scenes. Common examples include placing a firearm in the hand of a murder victim to make it appear as a suicide and re-positioning homicide victims in an effort to throw investigators off track. A rather unusual example of scene staging resulted when a woman was shot to death by her husband and then the firearm sprayed with Break Free© solvent and placed next to her, along with other gun cleaning materials, in an apparent effort to make it appear that the firearm had unintentionally discharged during cleaning. Subsequent testing demonstrated that the Break Free© was, in all probability, sprayed on after discharge, not before.
Introduction
A police officer called 911 from his residence claiming that he had started to clean his service weapon, a Glock model 17 9 mm pistol, but decided to go on an errand first. He said that when he returned a short time later, he found his wife shot and the gun and cleaning materials lying on the bed next to her body. He said he had unloaded the gun before leaving but the gun was found with a live round in the chamber and rounds in the magazine. He claimed that she had cleaned the gun for him in the past and must have been doing so again.
Investigators noted that the exterior of the pistol appeared to be “dripping wet” with apparent cleaning solvent. An aerosol can of Break Free© was lying close by with the cap off. A blood transfer was visible on the side of the can. Upon removal of the magazine, investigators noted that it too had a liberal coating of solvent. Subsequent laboratory analysis confirmed that the transfer stain on the can was consistent with the dead woman’s DNA profile. Other testing revealed that the residue on the pistol and magazine was consistent with Break Free© but that no similar residue could be found on either the woman’s hands or her clothing.
The obvious question to be answered was whether the solvent was applied before the discharge or after it. Unfortunately none of the investigators or analysts thought to inspect/swab the bore of the pistol or to even photograph the muzzle prior to test firing it. This type of inspection should always be requested by investigators so that the possible presence of blood or other trace evidence (cleaning solvent in this case) in the bore may be documented. Additionally, this should be a part of the standard examination protocol for the crime lab, whether investigators request it or not.
Although no photographs of the solvent present on the magazine were taken (the presence of solvent was described in a report only), there were photographs taken of both sides of the pistol. These photographs are shown in images 1 and 2. Two things can be seen in these images: there is an excessive amount of solvent present, particularly at the muzzle end and there is no evidence of any handling (i.e. disruption of the solvent residue).
Testing
In the absence of a barrel swab of the bore prior to the test firing associated with the crime lab’s original examination, it was decided by the writer to use the crime scene photographs of the solvent residue on the pistol to set up test firing with a similar weapon (the incident weapon was not available) with a comparable amount of solvent present to evaluate what, if any, distinction might be possible between pre-firing solvent appearance and post-firing.
An aerosol can of Break Free© like that found at the scene was acquired and used it to spray visually similar amounts of solvents onto the exterior of two weapons from the writer’s personal collection, a 9 mm Ruger P85 pistol and a 40 caliber Glock model 23. These particular weapons were selected so that both the Glock platform and 9 mm ammunition (similar to that used in the incident) could be tested.
The hypothesis to be tested was that the heavy coating of solvent on the slide, and particularly around the muzzle, of the incident weapon would have shown signs of disruption from a combination of the muzzle blast and the cycling of the action upon discharge. Secondarily, it was believed that upon discharge, solvent residue would likely be deposited on the clothing around the entry hole (no such residue had been found on the victim’s clothing). The two weapons were sprayed with Break Free© to simulate the appearance of the incident weapon as photographed at the crime scene. Accompanying images 3 and 4 show the test weapons just prior to discharge.
The crime lab had done distance testing, based upon gun powder deposition on the victim’s clothing, and determined that the muzzle to target distance was between 3 and 6 inches. Accordingly, the pistols utilized for this testing were fired from a muzzle to target distance of approximately 4 ½ inches. The target medium used was craft paper, a white, synthetic material typically used by this writer for distance determination testing.
Results
The test firing of both pistols produced similar results: there was obvious deposition of solvent droplets over the surfaces of the pistols and on the craft paper targets. Repeated shots under similar conditions produced similar results. Typical results are illustrated in images 5 – 8.
Conclusion
The absence of similar visible solvent droplets on the incident weapon and the victim’s clothing, along with the lack of evidence of handling and the absence of solvent residue on the victim’s hands, is inconsistent with the solvent having been present prior to discharge. This is indicative of the Break Free© having been applied after the weapon was discharged.
Discussion
As already stated, standard laboratory firearms examination protocol should include detailed photographs of all surfaces of a firearm where trace evidence is a consideration. Additionally, bore inspection and bore swabbing prior to test firing should also be standard procedure so that trace evidence may be documented and recovered. Swabs of the external surfaces of firearms, particularly the trigger, grip, slide, cylinder/magazine and ammunition, should be taken for touch DNA analysis. Had all this been done in this case, a much stronger conclusion might have been warranted.
Images
Crime scene photo showing excessive solvent present on incident pistol
Crime scene photo showing excessive solvent present on incident pistol
What You Should Know About DNA Exemplars
The analysis of DNA evidence has come a long way in just the last decade. I always teach that science does not solve crimes, only investigators can solve crimes. Say your DNA evidence gets uploaded into the CODIS databases and it comes back to a convicted offender named John Paolucci. You have a DNA hit, the holy grail of forensic evidence, but your job is far from over. Who is John Paolucci and why was his DNA in your crime scene?
It could turn out that John Paolucci is a relative or close friend of the family who served his time and is out now, regularly stopping by the victim’s residence to drink their beer and tell stories about prison. It could also be that John Paolucci is the plumber who was recently working on the baseboard and cut himself on a steel fin, coincidentally just below the window where the perpetrator entered, . Then the crime scene unit collected a blood swab from that location that produced the DNA hit. In these examples John Paolucci had legitimate access to the scene, but does that mean he isn’t the perpetrator? Investigators have a difficult job ahead of them.
Prior to uploading DNA into the CODIS databases, CODIS managers have to make certain that attempts to obtain DNA exemplars (samples) from all persons with legitimate access to the scene were made for elimination purposes. In many agencies it is the duty of the investigating detective to make all efforts to collect DNA exemplars from persons with legitimate access – but wait! People don’t want to stick swabs in their mouths and give big brother something as personal as their DNA. What if the computer comes up with that illegitimate child I may have fathered in Daytona, spring break 2004?
It can be very difficult to put people at ease when requesting that they provide a DNA exemplar, but the investigator needs to explain how much worse things will be if they refuse. They need to know that since they are regularly in this location, they have no doubt deposited some form of DNA there. If swabs and other DNA evidence collected from the scene are analyzed, the profile developed may be theirs. If they refuse to provide an exemplar then they will give the defense a significant loophole: “That’s not my client’s DNA!” If they provide an exemplar then the presence of this DNA that is foreign to the perpetrator is explained.
When the reason for not providing an exemplar is a fear that they will end up in a database, then the investigator has to explain to them that all probative and unknown DNA profiles developed from crime scene evidence are uploaded into the CODIS databases. In the event that the profile developed is theirs, and they are not eliminated, their DNA goes into CODIS. When their DNA is submitted for elimination purposes, it remains in that particular case file and is only compared to other profiles developed in that case and NOT uploaded. So refusing to provide a DNA exemplar makes it MORE likely their DNA will go into CODIS.
I have seen remarkable success when “Abandonment DNA” collected from suspects matches DNA collected at crime scenes. There essentially two means for collecting an abandonment DNA exemplar: A “ruse” and “covert surveillance” The set-up is your call, but let me just give some pointers on how to minimize contamination risks.
Covert surveillance can be very challenging. The investigator must follow his suspect and wait for him to abandon an item onto which he has deposited his DNA. This could include cigarette butts, drinking containers, eating utensils and items of this nature. The investigator MUST be certain that the item collected is in fact the same item that the suspect discarded. In other words, if the subject discards a cigarette butt on a street corner and there are several cigarette butts on the ground when the investigator goes to collect it, then this is a “Do-over” if he or she is not sure which one it is. Likewise if an item is thrown into the trash and commingles with other items that were previously deposited in that receptacle, a mixture may have occurred and efforts to collect the suspect’s DNA must continue. I recommend you work in a team where one detective follows the suspect and then maintains eye contact with the item and notifies his partner who comes to collect it. Again, the wrong person’s DNA will damage your case.
A ruse is when an investigator has his or her subject come in for an interview or some other excuse for an in person meeting, and hopefully the subject leaves some DNA behind. It is highly recommended that the room be prepared for this endeavor. Put a new liner in the trash can, clean the table with 10% bleach, have a new disposable ash tray on the table. When a subject leaves a cup, can or bottle behind that still contains liquid the best way to prepare that item for packaging without jeopardizing the DNA on the rim is to poke a hole in the bottom with a clean, sharp object and let the liquid drain from the bottom.
Cigarettes and gum are other consumables that may appeal to your subject. With these items, it’s best to toss the whole pack to your subject and have him remove the item to be consumed. When you think about removing a cigarette from a pack, you grab the filter with your fingers. Depending on what type of “shedder” you are, you may be creating a mixture. If the subject touches the filter of the cigarette he is going to smoke, it’s still in play. If you think you contaminated the evidence and you’re not likely to get another shot at this suspect, submit it with a sample of your DNA – as you tell your victims, it only stays in that case file. I’ll address concerns about cops’ DNA in a future article.
In both abandonment scenarios, always prepare your packaging ahead of time with the requisite case information. Once the item is in the packaging it is more difficult to write on and there is a risk of the writing instrument poking through the bag, contaminating or creating the potential for destruction of the DNA on the item. Check with your CODIS manager to see how low the threshold is to declare someone a “suspect”. You may be pleasantly surprised and have a gateway into the local DNA index system where he or she can be compared to the unknown crime scene samples therein.
