The Case of the Crushed Skull

On 7th June 1996, a tractor driver unearthed a human arm while ploughing a field at Little Abshot Farm, Hampshire, in the south of England. 

 

When the police arrived, they noticed a swarm of flies about 50m away from where the tractor driver had been forced to stop.  They had found the owner of the arm. 

The body was buried in a shallow grave and wrapped in a blue sleeping bag.  The hands had been placed in front of the body and held in place between the thighs with a knotted scarf.  The skull was badly damaged.  The only item of clothing on the body was a Pringle sweater.

The pathologist who performed the post-mortem concluded that death had occurred as a  result of the skull being struck by a blunt instrument.  However, the plough blade had caused a lot of damage to the skull and neck, so the possibility of death by strangulation could not be ruled out. 

Owing to the body being very badly decomposed, most identification features had disappeared.  The police knew that the body was male and that he had a gold crowned tooth.  No missing persons in Hampshire were a likely match. 

The body was too decayed for useful analysis of DNA or body fluids.  A toxicological analysis revealed no traces of drugs or poisons in the blood or other organs.  However, the results were not conclusive because of the level of decomposition. 

A gastroenterologist examined the body's stomach contents and found that the deceased's last meal was a vegetarian chilli with kidney beans.

When an odontologist examined the teeth, he discovered that they had a very low incidence of decay. This is typical of immigrants into the UK from the Indian sub-continent.  The degree of wear on the teeth indicated that the body was between 30 and 50 years old.  The gold crown contained only 21% gold instead of the usual 60%.  However, this did not turn out to be particularly unusual.  179 dental technicians were found to be using this lower quality metal in their work. 

A trichologist examined the hair and found it was naturally dark brown and not dyed.

Two fingerprints from one of the hands that had been tied between the thighs were able to be checked with immigration and national databases, but with no result.

There was no good news when the sleeping bag, jumper and scarf were examined.  The sleeping bag was the most common type available and the Pringle jumper was a fake.  The scarf was an Indian 'chunni', but at this point, its significance was unknown.  A forensic examination of the knot revealed nothing useful.

The police investigation team were left feeling frustrated with their lack of progress.

Then somebdy had the bright idea to commission a facial reconstruction.  Although the skull was severely damaged owing to the head injuries and the additional action of the plough, noted anatomical artist and forensic facial reconstruction expert, Richard Neave, was able to build up a clay likeness of the deceased. 

Here is a video which shows how facial reconstruction is done.

The image was used on the BBC programme 'Crimewatch', which asks for the public's help in solving crimes.  Within days of the programme being aired, the police had a name, Harjit Singh Luther aged 40 from Ilford, Essex.  The name and address of a possible suspect for Harjit's murder, Baljeet Rai from Southampton, was also put forward.   
 
The police attempted to formally identify Harjit from his dental records.  However, the records they were given did not match the deceased's teeth.  When the police queried this, a dental technician admitted using 21% gold for the gold crowned tooth but charged for 60% gold and pocketed the difference.  He had deliberately given the police the wrong set of dental records.  The right set of dental records confirmed the idenity of the deceasd as Harjit Singh Luther.

The suspect, Baljeet Rai, was an illegal immigrant from India, who had worked at Little Abshot Farm.  He had been refused political asylum and needed to arrange a marriage in order to stay in the UK.  He subsequently married Manjit Kaur, but she left him in February 1996 and returned to Harjit, by whom she had a daughter.  If his wife divorced him, Baljeet feared being deported to India. 

In 1998, both Baljeet and Manjit were put on trial for the murder of Harjit.  Manjit was acquitted, but Baljeet was sentenced to life imprisonment.  The judge recommended Baljeet's deportation.

So what happened?  In the early hours of a morning in April 1996, Baljeet entered Harjit and Manjit's flat in Ilford and found them in bed.  She woke up and was ordered to get out of bed and be quiet.  She grabbed her daughter and watched from the landing while Baljeet beat Harjit to death with a hockey stick.  At some point, Baljeet and Manjit drove the body to Little Abshot Farm in his Vauxhall Cavalier - a distance of about 100 miles -  where he buried the body in a heap of soil that had been brought onto the farm from a nearby irrigation canal.  He did not know that the heap would be flattened and the land used for planting, otherwise the body may have lain undiscovered for much longer.

This case was the largest murder investigation ever carried out by Hampshire Police. 14 different areas of expertise were called upon and around 3000 exhibits were documented, many of which were forensically examined.  But ultimately, it was a combination of the facial reconstruction and a lucky phone call that paved the way for solving the case of the crushed skull.






      



 

 



Seal of Approval for Crime Writers

In theory, it's possible to write a crime or mystery story without worrying too much about the technical details of the crime itself or the investigation that follows. However, if you make an obvious mistake, you run the risk of alienating your readers, some of whom will jump at the chance to contact you and set you straight!  My blog and those of D.P. Lyle and Tom Adair , for example, have been created to help you get the essential facts right.

But how will your readers know that your book is well researched and factually accurate?  What could persuade potential new readers to buy your books on this basis alone?  The Washington Academy of Sciences (WAS) may have the answer.  

Since June 2012, the WAS has been reviewing crime books for the accuracy of their science.  So far, they have awarded their seal of approval to four books; a fifth book is under consideration.

Here is a link to an article that discusses the award and the reasoning behind it.  You'll also find a list of the 'approved' books.

Seal of Approval for Crime Writers

Is it a good idea?  I think it is.  An awful lot of people are turned off by science at school, but love it when it is packaged in an entertaining way, such as in a crime novel or TV series.  This can be a double-eged sword.  The 'CSI effect' has become a much talked-about phenomenon. Many legal commentators have suggested that jurors have unrealistic expectations of forensic science as a result of watching the programme.  They fear that this could prejudice the outcome of a case at trial. 

Presumably, the WAS hopes that its scheme will go some way to rein in these expectations, although, in the short term, I doubt that the public's perception of forensic science will change significantly. . 

However, good idea or not, let's keep it in perspective.  The whole point of a crime novel or TV series is to entertain the reader or viewer.  Nobody reading for pleasure or watching TV for relaxation wants a text book or a lecture.  It's the way in which the (accurate) technical information is woven into the plot which will ultimately determine the writer's success.

Contact details for the WAS

Are you in favour of this scheme?  Why not leave a comment at the end of this blog.

Don't forget to follow me on Twitter: @forensicswrite

My most recent tweets link to articles  discussing fictional murders on TV and identifying the dead from the contents of their pockets.  You'll also be the first to know when I've written a new blog post.

Getting Rid of the Evidence

Are the 'bad guys' ever desperate enough to launch a physical attack on a forensics laboratory that is holding evidence that incriminates them? 

 

Attacks on forensics laboratories are not unknown but, fortunately, their occurrence is rare. 

 

In 1976, during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, a 900kg explosive device reduced the forensic science laboratory in Belfast to rubble.  Valuable forensic evidence for use in the prosecution of terrorist suspects was destroyed.

 

On 18th February 2010, just after midnight, the Scottish Police Services Authority Forensic Science Laboratory in Edinburgh was firebombed.  The laboratory deals with about one-fifth of Scotland's forensics casework.  A masked man was spotted running away from the scene, before getting into a small, dark-coloured car.  The car, driven by a second man, sped off into the night.  Firefighters extinguished the two fires that had been started in ground floor offices, but there was extensive smoke damage throughout the building.

The firebombs did not cause any structural damage to the areas holding forensic exhibits (or 'productions', as they are called in Scotland), so the perpetrators may not have achieved their aim.  There was no report on whether the smoke damage had affected subsequent forensic examinations.

Here is a description of the two men thought to be responsible for the crime, but as far as I know, they have not been identified.

 

Description of alleged forensic laboratory firebombers

Away from man-made destruction, natural events, like Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina, have wreaked havoc on potential forensic evidence, with interesting consequences for the criminal justice system.

Here is an article from the New York Times about the Hurricane Sandy-induced flooding of two NYPD warehouses containing items awaiting forensic examination, what is happening in the courts as a result of 'inaccessible' evidence, and how the New Orleans Police Department is still struggling with forensic issues after Hurricane Katrina.

Flooding of two police warehouses destroys evidence needed for criminal trials

Don't forget you can follow me on Twitter @forensicswrite where I tweet links to articles about forensics or crime writing or perhaps both at the same time.  Please feel free to send me a forensics query or leave a comment on my blog.  I'd love to hear from you.



 

Character Witness

A sure-fire way to insult the profession of forensic handwriting examination is to refer to its practitioners as 'graphologists'.  Despite Freud's assertion that 'there is no doubt that men express their character through handwriting', science begs to differ.

 

Certainly, there is some confusion between the terms 'graphology' and 'forensic handwriting examination', particularly within the legal profession.  To make matters worse, a number of graphologists profess to practise forensic handwriting examination.

 

So, what is the difference between these two disciplines?  According to the British Institute of Graphologists, graphology is based on the principle that 'every individual's handwriting has a character of its own and this is entirely due to the uniqueness of the writer's personality'. 

By contrast, forensic handwriting examination is the application of scientific method and techniques to the comparison of handwriting and signatures for the purpose of assigning authorship.

 

A graphologist will analyse and interpret handwriting by means of in-depth psychological and personality investigation.  The services offered by graphologists include management selection, compatibility asessments, security checking and personality profiling.
 

Forensic handwriting experts are concerned with determining who has written or signed a document.  Disappointed relatives may allege that the testator's signature on a will is a forgery, when they did not receive an expected legacy from the deceased.  The police may discover a handwritten list of drug deals during a search of a suspect's house.  In the will example, the forensic handwriting expert will compare examples of the genuine signature of the testator with the disputed signature.  In the list of drug deals example, the suspect's handwriting will be compared with the handwriting of the list.  In both examples, the purpose of the examination is to determine authorship and not to establish the writer's state of mind or character.

Forensic handwriting experts are also forensic document examiners.  They will, therefore, possess expertise in other areas, such as the detection and interpretation of erasures, alterations and indented impressions, and the examination of printed and phocopied documents.  This work is outside the scope of graphology.

So, there is clear daylight between the two disciplines.  Now, I am prepared to be proved wrong here, but I do not know of any forensic document examiner who has a sideline in graphology or who has ever dipped a toe in the graphological water.  There are, however, a number of graphologists who do not recognise the distinction between the disciplines and have set themselves up as forensic handwriting experts, while still continuing to practise graphology.

Graphologists are, technically, handwriting experts, of course.  However, the term in its legal sense is a definition of those who give expert evidence in court.  As any lawyer will tell you, the purpose of expert evidence is to provide the court with information on scientific procedures or results that are outside the experience of judge and jury.  So the question here is whether graphologists can claim to have credible expertise in court, particularly as they may not be scientifically trained or possess any relevant qualifications.

The answer to that is a resounding 'No'.  There are many examples where graphologists who claim to be forensic handwriting experts have been discredited in the US Courts.  In one example, the testimony of a so-called expert witness was excluded on appeal because the individual practised graphotherapy in addition to forensic handwriting examination, was not a member of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners and had obtained a Master's degree and Doctorate by correspondence.

Some graphologists try to side-step the expert testimony obstacle by offering a 'Signed Declaration' instead of appearing live in court.  In effect, they are refusing to attend court and put their 'expertise' on the line, something that no reputable forensic document examiner would ever do.

Forensic document examiners receive expert witness training during their probationary period and accept that attending court is part of their duties.  It will be obvious to the court that the forensic handwriting expert has the requisite scientific background and training to be called a 'handwriting expert' in the legal sense. Utimately, however, it is the Court's responsibility to establish competency.

The only way to become a bona-fide forensic handwriting expert is to undertake a professional apprenticeship.  This effectively bars the door to graphologists wishing to 'cross-train', but, undaunted, they are still out there.

As a crime writer, you could have a lot of fun setting up a courtroom battle between a forensic document examiner and a graphologist.  I'm still not sure what a 'limp 7' is, to quote from a graphologist's report of many years ago.

For now, I wish you a happy and prosperous 2013.  I hope your writing dreams will be fulfilled.

 

 



Gut Feeling

This is my last blog of 2012, and as it is the festive season, I'm going to write about intestinal micro-organisms!

 

We humans live with a large population of micro-organisms in our intestines.  Collectively known as gut flora, they perform a variety of useful functions, such as extracting nutrients from food, training the immune system to respond only to pathogens and preventing the growth of harmful bacteria.

Now, researchers at Washington School of Medicine in St Louis and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Heidelberg, Germany, are suggesting that our gut flora may have an important part to play in forensics.  Just as our DNA varies from person to person, so, apparently, does the DNA of the micro-organisms in our intestines.  This means that a person may be identifiable from the DNA profile of their gut flora.

Here is an account of the research:

New Genetic Fingerprint lives in your Gut

Clearly, the overall purpose of the research is to improve human health.  But advances in forensics often come from unexpected sources.  The revolutionary approach to developing invisible indented impressions of writing on paper arose, almost accidentally, from research into latent fingerprint development techniques.

So, if one of your characters leaves a series of anonymous letters smeared in excrement in a number of other characters' mailboxes (it does happen), maybe this new technique could provide a starting point for the police investigation.  Just a thought.........

If you celebrate Christmas, have a wonderful time and don't treat your gut flora too badly!  Thank you for reading my blog this year, and  I hope to connect with you again in 2013.

Don't forget to follow me on Twitter @forensicswrite.



The Sole Evidence

On 27th July 2008, at approximately 5am, newlyweds Ben and Catherine Mullany were shot and robbed in their hotel bedroom on the last day of their Antiguan honeymoon.  Catherine died instantly; Ben went into a coma and survived long enough to be flown home to Wales, but doctors could do nothing for him.  A week later, his life support machine was turned off. 

Two weeks after the Mullany killings, local shopkeeper Woneta Anderson was shot and killed during a robbery at her store.  All three victims had been shot once in the head. 

The Government of Antigua and Barbuda had called in London's Metropolitan Police to assist with the investigations into the Mullany killings.  Antigua's tourism-based economy was likely to be severely damaged by the killings, unless the case was solved quickly.  Moreover,  Antigua had only one trained forensics officer, who would be under immense pressure without additional expert assistance.   

The Mullany killings were found to be linked to the Anderson killing - all three victims were shot with the same gun.  From the wealth of forensic evidence found at the Anderson crime scene, two local men, Kaniel Martin and Avie Howell, were arrested and subsequently charged with murder. 

After a trial lasting two months, Martin and Howell were convicted of the three killings.  Each man received three consecutive life sentences for their crimes.  At the time of their sentencing, they had yet to be tried for two other charges of causing death by shooting.

One important piece of forensic evidence concerned the partial shoeprints made in blood, which were found at the scene of the Anderson killing.  The forensic examination of shoeprints is a huge subject and impossible to cover in detail in a blog post.  However, here is a report of the shoeprint evidence given at the Mullany/Anderson murder trial, which, I think will give you a good general overview of the topic.

 Shoeprint evidence at Mullany/Anderson murder trial

As is clear from Anthony Larkin's evidence, in order to be able to link a suspect's shoe with a crime scene sole impression, individual features have to be present in both.

Individualisation of a shoe's sole is based upon the knowledge that accidental marks formed during wear are unique.  It is essential that the forensic examiner is well-versed in the shoe manufacturing process, otherwise manufacturing defects could be mistakenly identified as unique wear damage, particularly by an inexperienced examiner.  Cheap footwear is more likely to contain manufacturing defects than expensive brands. 

The surface bearing the shoeprints can affect the quality of the impression.  The wooden floor of Woneta Anderson's store was rough and uneven.  As Mr Larkin pointed out, the damage feature on the sole impression was not as clear as it could have been, because of problems with the surface of the floorboards.

Since footwear impressions are one of the most common types of evidence found at a crime scene, a great deal of research has been carried out to find the best methods for enhancing visible shoeprint impressions and developing latent (invisible) impressions, particularly on difficult surfaces, such as clothing.

Researchers at the University of Abertay in Scotland have recently produced 'the world's first detailed images of latent footwear left on fabrics'.  By adapting and modifying existing visualisation techniques, the researchers hope that their methods will be particularly valuable in cases where no DNA or fingerprint evidence is found.

Read about their work here:

 Shoeprints recovered from crime scene clothing

Finally, a word about automation.  Clearly, the linking of a crime scene shoeprint with an item of footwear is always a task for a forensic expert.  However, reference databases of footwear sole patterns are available for the police and other law enforcement agencies to allow them to identify makes and styles of footwear.  This obviously saves a lot of time and allows a case to move forward more rapidly.

Here are some examples of commercially available shoeprint identification products.

Foster and Freeman's shoeprint identification products

Cape Coral PD in Florida found its shoeprint matching software invaluable in tracking down a serial burglar.  Watch the video here:

I



 

 

If you have enjoyed this blog, please feel free to share it.  Forensics for Writers is on Facebook and NetworkedBlogs.  You can also follow me on Twitter @forensicswrite.

   

The Scent of Death

Last year, the USA was gripped by the Casey Anthony murder trial.  Anthony was accused of murdering her daughter, Caylee, aged 2, and providing false information to the police.  Caylee was not reported missing for a month, and it was a further 6 months before her decomposed remains were found in woods close to her home.  When the jury reached a 'not guilty' verdict on the murder charge, the country was shocked.  There had not been such a controversial verdict since OJ.  I'm sure you will have your own opinions about both verdicts.

 

One of the prosecution witnesses at the Anthony trial was K-9 Deputy Jason Forgey, whose cadaver dog, Gerus, alerted to the scent of human remains in the trunk of Casey Anthony's car and a corner of her parents' back yard.

Watch Deputy Forgey's testimony here.     

The ability of dogs to locate people and objects by scent has been utilised by law enforcement agencies for a long time.  Trained dogs are used primarily for tracking, searching and locating evidence.  Some dogs are cross-trained for more than one task; others are trained to perform a specific function.

There seems to be some variation in terminology for describing and differentiating between dogs trained for particular tasks, but for the purposes of this blog, I'm using the term  'Cadaver Dogs' to describe dogs which are primarily trained as search dogs, but have also received cross-training in the location of dead human bodies.

By contrast, 'Forensic Evidence Dogs' (also known as 'Human Remains Detection Dogs'), specialise in buried bodies, old homicide cases, bone searches, buildings searches, vehicle searches, crime scene searches, small scent sources and residual scent.  Other forensic evidence dogs specialise in searching for firearms, explosives or drugs.

In forensic work, the breed of dog is less important than its ability to learn, interact with its handler and locate a particular scent.  But a search and rescue dog, for example, needs to be robust, like a German Shepherd.

Both Cadaver Dogs and Forensic Evidence/HRD Dogs are trained to locate the scent of death, which is caused by chemical decomposition.  However, because they are not cross-trained, Forensic Evidence/HRD Dogs are never looking for live scent.  They have been taught to exclude fresh human scent and to ignore all animal scents, whether fresh or decomposed, when carrying out a search.  

Working slowly and methodically, a fully trained Forensic Evidence/HRD Dog will not disturb a crime scene nor will it retrieve evidence.  It will also search homes and vehicles without causing any damage.  When it finds a residual scent of a dead human or dried blood, for example, it will alert its handler by demonstrating a particular behaviour, such as standing still and barking, or lying down.

The scent may not indicate the actual location of the remains.  Running water can move the scent away from the grave site.  So although the dog will alert where the scent is strongest, this may be some distance from the body itself. 

The handler of a Forensic Evidence/HRD Dog also has to be highly trained.  If called to court, the handler has, in effect, to testify on behalf of their dog.  So handlers log all their dogs' training and also take courses in orienteering, criminal procedures, report writing, hazardous materials awareness and canine first aid.

So how accurate are Cadaver Dogs and Forensic Evidence/HRD Dogs?  Canine fallibility was alluded to in Deputy Forgey's cross-examination. 

Various studies have shown that handler error and inexperience can lower the recovery success rate from 100% to as little as 57%.  It doesn't matter how good the dog is at locating evidence, if the handler is unable to interpret the dog's alerts properly.

Just like a human, a tired, hungry or stressed dog will not perform as well as when it is fresh, fed and happy.  In fact, a severely fatigued dog may give a false alert, simply because it wants to rest.

Forensic Evidence/HRD Dogs are also employed away from law enforcement work. The Institute for Canine Forensics has been using Forensic Evidence/HRD Dogs to search for Native American burials and cremations on the site of the proposed Tule Wind Energy site in the McCain Valley, California.

Here is a video of one of the dogs at work.
       

Don't forget, you can find out when I post a new blog  - and much more - by following me on Twitter @forensicswrite.