The job of
investigating a person’s death has been around since 1194, although the motive
for doing so started out much differently. The first coroners, or “crowners” as
they were called, worked for King Richard I of England.1 The purpose
of investigating peoples’ deaths was to collect taxes and property that might
otherwise have been lost. Doctors and medical knowledge were not used to
determine death; the “crowners” and gravediggers just used common sense. It was
not until the 1900’s that forensics became a legitimate science, and even so
there is currently no national system of death investigation in the US; every
state has its own procedures. While interest in forensic science has always
been fairly low, advances in technology such as the modern computer and medical
imaging machines, as well the large number of crime shows and novels that have
been released have lead to forensic science being put in the spotlight. Because
of this, the field of forensic science has grown and developed significantly in
the past decade not only through advances in medical technology and techniques,
but also through interest garnered by the media.
There
are hundreds of ways for a person to die and even more factors involved in
determining for how long a person has been dead. The first recorded handbook
for forensic investigators was written by a Chinese man called Sung Tz’u, more
than 700 years ago. The handbook detailed post-mortem examinations and included
descriptions of tests that should be performed in the hours following a
person’s death, as well as insights into the changes a body goes through as
decomposition sets in. Despite the fact that this handbook was written almost
three-quarters of a millennium ago, not much more information has been gathered
on the subject until the founding the “Body Farm.”
In
1981, Forensic anthropologist Dr. Bill Bass founded the Body Farm out of a need
to learn more about the different factors that influence a body’s rate of
decomposition, such as temperature, climate, moisture level, or if the body is
indoors or outdoors. There were also some fundamental questions that had never
been answered before, such as how long it takes for a corpse to become a
skeleton. Stationed at the University of Tennessee, Dr. Bass and some of his
graduate students developed an acre of land to become the first outdoor
laboratory on human decomposition. Dr. Bass said the goal was to “establish a
research facility unlike any other in the world…[where] scientists and graduate
students would observe the process [and] document variables…and chart the
timing of human decomposition” (Jefferson and Bass 95). The bodies at the Body
Farm have all been donated by families of the deceased and have provided
crucial information.
One of the most
important methods to determine time of death is to look at insect activity, or
lack of it. Before the Body Farm, not much was known about insect activity.
Graduate students conducted extensive research to determine the circumstances
of insect activity, and even to create a time frame for how long it took
insects to arrive at a body after death. Students found that aside from flies,
yellow jackets and wasps showed up minutes to hours after death, especially if
the body was out in the open. As it was discovered, insect activity on a body does
not happen randomly but can be tracked, documented and used forensically.
Insect activity can determine time of death remarkably precisely and has been
extremely useful in solving crimes, once the research was gathered at the Body
Farm. Forensic entomology is the study of insects in relation to cases where
foul play is suspected. These scientists look at the number of insects as well
as the species and are able to pinpoint almost exactly when a person died. Not
only are adult insects important, their offspring are too: insects such as
flies will lay eggs almost immediately after they have discovered a food
source. If a body is found with larvae on it, entomologists are able to work
backward using the developmental stage of the larvae or their casings to see
when the eggs were first laid. Research at the Body Farm lead to the creation
of a timetable that illustrates how long after death it takes for various
species of insects to arrive at the scene and lay their eggs. Insect research
has yielded much valuable informstion, which can be used to prove time of death
and can provide incontestable evidence in a courtroom. Discovering time of
death is a crucial component in solving a crime, but the findings might not
hold up in court unless they can be scientifically proven. Dr. Bass and his
colleagues gathered an enormous amount of observational data, but they needed a
way to present the data that was more precise and less open to interpretation.
Arpad Vass, a
Ph.D. candidate at the time he met Dr. Bass, had an idea about a method to
gather empirical data from a body to determine time of death. When a body
begins to decompose it produces a puddle of greasy compounds. This compound is
actually composed of volatile fatty acids created by the breakdown of fat and DNA.2
After months of testing, Arpad discovered that the chemical composition of this
puddle differed depending on time since death. By analyzing the puddles and
determining the ratio of fatty acids while adjusting for average daily
temperature, Arpad was able to create an equation that could easily calculate
time since death. Dr. Bass has been using this equation ever since, and this
discovery has made a great impact in evidence presentation in a courtroom.
While the Body
Farm has provided valuable insight into how a body decomposes and providing
tools to find time of death, it does not offer much help in determining cause
of death. That is where the traditional autopsy comes in. There is a defined
procedure as to how an autopsy should be conducted, with steps that must be
followed and samples that must be taken, however, because there is no national
autopsy standard outside of the basic procedure, coroners and medical examiners
from different states may have different techniques.1 These varying
techniques may miss important information and lead to botched autopsies, which
can in turn mean the difference between a killer being jailed or walking.
One of the most
famous botched autopsies was the one performed on President Kennedy following
his assassination. Because of the chaos surrounding the shooting, certain
protocols were not followed. According to forensic pathologist Dr. Michael
Baden, the CIA who were conducting the investigation “were unaware that there
were two kinds of autopsies, the usual hospital one and the forensic one [and
they] did not know the difference between an entrance wound and an exit wound”
(Baden 8). Also, so many different people examined the body that certain notes
and pieces of evidence got lost. Dr. Baden and his associates examined the
angles of the gunshot wounds as well as all of the surrounding evidence and
determined that there was only one shooter. They said, “forensically, we had
proved it beyond a doubt” (Baden 19). Despite their systematic explanation of
their findings, conspiracy theorists continue to believe in a second shooter.
If there had been a more organized autopsy conducted, evidence might not have
been lost and a more definitive conclusion might have been drawn.
The Kennedy
assassination and subsequent autopsy may be one of the most widely publicized,
but it is not rare for autopsies to mistake cause of death; this is where the
virtual autopsy can help. Using MRI machines and CT scans, every detail of a
body from the outer surface to oxygen pockets in the tissue can be detected.
The technology is currently in use in select forensic labs in Europe, but once
it has been further developed it may eventually replace the traditional
autopsy. According to Michael Thali, the director of Zurich’s Institute of
Forensic Technology, “there will be no such thing as the perfect murder any
more because the virtual autopsy allows you to find every piece of evidence”.4
The virtual autopsy scans the body and scientists are able to review the images
in search of cause of death, identifying features, and pieces of evidence. The
images themselves can be manipulated and examined from different angles,
allowing for a more complete and thorough examination. Similarly, scientists
are able to choose which layers of the body they would like to examine. For
example, forensic anthropologists may choose to view only the bone structure
while other scientists may want to focus on the muscular system. The virtual
autopsy can also reveal evidence never before seen in the form of gas pockets
in the tissue. For instance, there is a small bone in the neck above the Adam’s
apple called the hyoid bone that is extremely fragile. If a person were to have
their airway cut off during strangulation, the hyoid bone is likely to
fracture. In most cases, a fractured hyoid bone is 99.9% indicative of
strangulation.2 However, in younger people, the hyoid bone is much
more flexible and may resist fracturing even if extreme pressure is applied. In
both cases, when the airway is cut off, the oxygen from the lungs has nowhere
to go and is forced out into the surrounding tissue of the neck, resulting in
pockets of oxygen and other gases. The virtual autopsy is able to create images
of these gas pockets and prove strangulation as a cause of death, even if the
hyoid bone is intact. Evidence such as this would not be visible in a
traditional examination and may lead to the killer’s capture. Another benefit
of the virtual autopsy is that the body remains intact for further scans, and
it is also more respectful for the deceased and any family. The groundbreaking
technology is considered by many to be the greatest advancement in forensic
medicine in the past century.
Technology
that isn’t considered strictly medical may also serve to ameliorate forensic
techniques. According to Dr. Maria Burgess, advances in the satellite imaging
capabilities of Google Earth are currently being used to monitor vegetation
cover. Dr. Burgess says, “Google Earth is extremely useful in environmental science.
There is an incredible amount of technology available for free”.3 Not
only can Google Earth be used for vegetation, it may also be modified to be
used in crime scene analysis or for searching large areas of land. Satellite
photos may show areas of extreme vegetative growth, indicating the presence of
an unnatural source of nourishment for the plants, possibly in the form of a
decomposing body hidden nearby. Improving and repurposing technology such as
Google Earth could significantly add to the capabilities of forensic science
and crime scene investigation.
Forensic
laboratories themselves are demonstrating an emerging trend of more open and
accessible workspaces complete with high tech equipment. New forensic devices
will become more available and their size will diminish due to microchip
technology. Efforts are being made to design a more efficient lab environment
to speed investigation times. Marybeth Murphy, P.A (ASCP) is a Pathologist’s
Assistant at Beverly Hospital, Beverly MA. Mrs. Murphy explains that she
“[processes] human tissue samples in the pathology lab for microscopic review
and diagnosis by a pathologist”. She goes on to say that her job “requires a
constant proofreading of reports and…an eye for detail”.10 Lab
environments such as this would benefit from renovations and the implementation
of designs to aid concentration and work productivity, such as increased levels
of daylight and collaboration between scientists. Dr. Bass discusses his
workspace in his memoir, detailing the dingy conditions of his lab in an unused
building beneath the stands at the University of Tennessee. He says that the unfurnished
and dank offices quickly grew to include 150 rooms from the original 8 as the
program expansws, although now they are “even older and more run-down today
than they were” (Bass and Jefferson, 56). While Dr. Bass and his colleagues are
able to cope and do good work even though their workspace is lacking,
renovations and increased funding to crime labs would help with investigator
productivity and may even allow smaller and more rural labs to get access to
the equipment they need in order to solve crimes, as so many labs are
understaffed and underequipped.
Even
though the body of the victim plays a large role in solving a crime, the actual
crime scene itself can provide valuable insight into what happened. Evidence of
the crime such as blood spatter can reveal crucial information as to the nature
of the crime: the distance of the killer to the victim, the type of weapon
used, even the position the killer and the victim were in during the crime. All
of these factors can help investigators find evidence and solve the crime.
Blood
spatter analysis is the scientific study of patterns in blood caused by
injuries from gunshot wounds, knives, or any other sort of weapon. The actual
spatter pattern can tell investigators the distance of the killer from the
victim, his position in relation to the victim, as well as what type of weapon
or weapons were used in the attack. Current methods of blood spatter analysis
involve taking photographs of the scene and physically drawing arrows to show
directionality of the attack, or similar findings. String can also be used to find
the origin of the blood by tracing bloodstains back to a common source. The
shape of the blood droplet is also used to determine what sort of weapon was
used. For example, a fine misting of blood indicates a gunshot wound while
spatter indicates a blow such as one sustained from a baseball bat. A knife has
a very thin edge so it produces characteristic blood droplets. The droplets
themselves have a thick portion and then a very thin line leading away,
pointing to the direction the blood was going. Analysis of this direction can
allow investigators to recreate a crime step by step.
To the untrained eye, blood spatter
may seem random but it actually forms patterns. Drops of blood would be from an
open wound, spurts come from a severed artery, and pools come from a body
draining of blood.
No matter how carefully trained a forensic
analyst may be, there is always a possibility that the evidence can be misread,
especially if the crime scene is compromised in some way. Perhaps the most
notorious example is the OJ Simpson murder trial where photos show evidence
being moved and police footprints contaminating the scene. The National Academy
of Sciences says that the biggest risk to a crime scene is “a lack of standard
forensic practices”.8 Because of this, there is a much greater risk
of crime scene contamination, which could compromise an entire case.
This where a new
laser scanning system comes in. Using special laser technology currently being
developed at North Carolina State University, a scanning computer is placed in
the crime scene where it scans every visible inch of the room using an
invisible infrared laser. The images it creates can be used in crime scene
reconstructions without the risk of any contamination from investigators. Once
the data is collected, it is sent to video game engineers at the university who
then create a 3D model of the room, overlaying high-resolution photographs
taken at the crime scene onto the digital model. Once this is complete,
investigators can view the scene from any angle.
Not
only is this digital version useful in preventing the contamination of
evidence, it can also be used to check eyewitness accounts. For example, a fake
crime scene was set up in order to test the capabilities of the scanner and the
digital software back at the university. The “eyewitness” reported receiving
word of intruders at his rental property. When he went to investigate, the
witness said he saw a man escaping out of the kitchen window while the he stood
in the doorway of the house, and then he looked down to see a body. Using the
digital model, the investigators placed themselves in the location where the
witness said he was and found that from their position, it was impossible to
see to the kitchen window, therefore the witness must have been farther inside
the house and much closer to the body then he reported. The digital clone of
the room can also be manipulated. In this case, the investigators said the door
from the kitchen to the living room was open when they arrived. They closed the
door in the digital model and found that the blood spatter on it was consistent
with it being closed when the crime occurred, meaning that the scene had been
tampered with before the police arrived, and implicated the witness. While this
is just a simulated crime scene and no murder took place, the technology will
be used in future crime scenes and may lead to more effective investigations.
One
of the most iconic images in forensic science is the fingerprint.
Fingerprinting has been in use for over a hundred years, and the idea that
every fingerprint is unique is a fundamental concept, however fingerprints may
not be as unique as previously thought. A fingerprint is made up of sweat and
oil from the fingertip, which leaves a characteristic imprint on the surfaces
it touches. These fingerprints have identifying features that are examined and
run through a database of fingerprints in order to find a match. For forensic
fingerprint analysts to declare fingerprints a match, they need to have at
least 12 corresponding points. However, certain materials such as plastic and
metal are easy to wipe clean of fingerprints, and still other materials may
only yield partial prints. This may lead to false matches being made,
incriminating innocent people. Even if investigators are able to get a full set
of prints, there is the matter of actually being able to analyze them. In the
past, several different methods of analysis were used. One way was to spray superglue
on the fingerprint. The glue particles would stick to the ridges and whorls of
the fingerprint and then harden, producing a fingerprint that could be more
easily preserved and analyzed. A downside of this method is that the glue is
not able to capture miniscule details of the fingerprint; certain features
would be obscured and this could lead to a false match.
In
order to combat this risk, more of a fingerprint’s unique characteristics must
be exposed. Scientist Dr. Akhlesh Lakhtakia at Penn State University uses a
high tech material called CTF, or columnar thin film, which, when applied to a
fly’s cornea as a test, conformed to every peak and valley of the eye.4
The material uses microscopic glass bristles that attach themselves to minute
details. A layer 200 times thinner than a piece of paper creates a precise form
of whatever it is applied to. This technology can be used on fingerprints in
order to preserve the tiny details that can separate two fingerprints from each
other. To the naked eye, the fingerprint treated with CTF shows ridgelines that
would be missing on a superglue fingerprint. When examined under a microscope,
exponentially more ridgelines and details are visible. The CTF is currently
under review in the field and when it is perfected, it will revolutionize
forensic fingerprint analysis.
All
of the techniques and technologies outlined are all very useful in solving
crimes, but they are meaningless unless enough forensic specialists are
available to use them. Interest in forensic science has traditionally been low,
but according to the Forensic Science Colleges’ Forensic Science Job Outlook,
“interest in forensic science jobs has grown tremendously in the past decade,
and it is not likely to decrease any time soon”.11 Currently,
forensic science is one of the fastest growing areas of employment in the US,
and has demonstrated a growth rate of over 20% in the past few years. One of
the most contributing factors to this sudden interest in forensics is the
plethora of crime shows and novels that glamorize the jobs. TV shows such as
“CSI: Crime Scene Investigation”, “Bones”, and “Criminal Minds” are immensely
popular in the US and are being credited with the increase in the interest
toward forensic science. While these shows are extremely popular, others say
that the sudden interest can be attributed to advancements made in medicine,
science and technology.
The
benefit of these crime shows is that they spark an interest in careers in
forensic sciences and there is a quantifiable increase in the number of
forensic investigators being trained. However, the technology and techniques shown
on the TV shows present unrealistic expectations of what it is like to work in
forensics. For example, much of forensic anthropology, which is the study of bones
and the skeleton in a legal setting, is the examination of remains with rotting
flesh still attached. Viewers of these TV shows do not want to be disgusted by
what they are seeing, so the shows give a glamorized interpretation of what is
done in the lab. Similarly, most crimes are not solved in one day as depicted
in TV shows, but rather take weeks to years with a lot of paperwork and dead
ends. According to DNA specialist Dan Krane, “real analysts do their work in
the lab—they don’t venture onto a crime scene”. This is a different picture
than what is presented on TV, where the analysts are shown to be collecting
evidence themselves and then testifying in court. While the technology
presented in the shows is usually authentic, it is often portrayed as been more
foolproof than it actually is, or delivering results more quickly than is
physically possible in reality.
The
problem with these TV shows is not only that they give prospective forensic
analysts the wrong idea of what occurs on the job, it may make others believe
that when they watch enough of these TV shows they know as much as the experts
do. This emerging phenomenon is called the “CSI Effect”. In a paper published
in the National Institute of Justice
Journal, the issue of juries being negatively influenced by crime shows is
discussed. According to the paper, “many attorneys, judges, and journalists
have claimed that watching television programs like CSI has caused jurors to wrongfully acquit guilty defendants when
no scientific evidence has been presented”.6 Jurors believe that
courtroom proceedings should progress in the same fashion as what is presented
on TV.
In order to
provide empirical data to support the occurrence of the CSI Effect, 1000 jurors
were surveyed prior to participation in court proceedings. According to the
survey, 36% of the jurors expected to see fingerprint evidence in every
criminal case and 46% expected to see some kind of scientific evidence in every
case.6 The good news about this study is that of the jurors surveyed
compared to a control group of jurors who did not watch crime shows, although
the crime show viewers had higher expectations for scientific evidence, whether
or not they watched the crime shows had little bearing on their willingness to
convict the defendant. This means that even though the jurors who regularly
watch crime shows expect to see more scientific evidence, they are not more or
less likely to convict a defendant based on this. If anything, some speculate
that crime shows allow the jury to be more critical of the evidence presented
which may be beneficial to the case. Dr. Bass says, “even though TV sometimes
creates unrealistic expectations about the swiftness and certainty of murder
investigations…[they] do get a lot dead right: Crime scene investigation is
absolutely crucial to solving a crime” (Bass and Jefferson, 73). An educated
jury would be a valuable asset to a court proceeding, and even if entertainment
media frequently depicts a glamorized version of this scientific field, any
increase in interest could prove to be highly beneficial in procuring
convictions.
Ever
since the founding of forensics as a legitimate science, there has been slow
growth in the field. It is not an easy job to identify remains and gather
enough evidence for a conviction, and results are not guaranteed. Sometimes
there is just not enough information to catch a criminal, or even to identify
the victim at all. Medical technology is always advancing and becoming more
precise and efficient and it seems natural to repurpose some of this technology
to help arrest criminals. Positive portrayal of forensic scientists in popular
TV shows has helped to create an interest in the field and with more scientists
being trained and working in the labs, funding to outfit these labs with state
of the art materials and equipment follows. Because of both of these factors,
the field of forensic science has grown incredibly in the past decade,11
and in the coming years it may become advanced enough to completely eradicate the
notion of a perfect murder.
Works Cited
1Baden, Michael. Unnatural Death: Confessions of a Medical
Examiner. 1989. New
York: Ballantine
Books, 2005. Print.
2Bass, Bill, and Jon
Jefferson. Death’s Acre. 2003. New
York: Berkley Publishing Group,
2004. Print.
3Burgess, Maria.
Personal interview. 22 May 22, 2013
4“Forensics on Trial.” Nova. PBS. WGBH, Boston. 17 Oct. 2012.
Television.
5Genge, N. E. The Forensic Casebook. New York:
Ballantine Books, 2002. Print.
6Thomas, Andrew P. “The CSI Effect: Fact or Fiction.” The
Yale Law Journal.
115 YALE L.J. POCKET PART 70 (2006). Web.
14. Mar. 2013.
7Maples,
William R. Dead Men Do Tell Tales.
New York: Broadway, 1995. Print.
analysis to reconstruct the position and orientation of a firearm.” Forensic Science
International 11 Mar. 2013. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.
9Mount,
Michael. “Forensic Science Laboratory 2030: Physical Environment.” Forensic
Magazine 13 Feb. 2013. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.
10Murphy,
Marybeth. Personal interview. 9 May 2013
11Paton,
Graeme. “CSI Fuels Forensic Science Degree Rise.” Daily Telegraph 16 Oct.
2009. Web.
8 May 2013.
