Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Gary A McAvin
AKA Gavin
Crime Scene Reconstruction 2
Why do we have crime scene reconstruction and analysis? How did criminology
originate and develop into the science it has now become? Most important is; who or what will
speak for the silenced victim of a brutal homicide? The victim has been silenced and all that
remains is their lifeless body. No other humans witnessed this barbarous event except the victim
now deceased and;the perpetrator or UNSUB as BAU calls them. Were any indicatorsor
evidence left that will lead to the capture and prosecution of the suspect? What can now be done
for the victim other than burial? And; how does one go about finding out what exactly
Whatis by definition crime scene reconstruction and analysis? “The use of scientific
methods, physical evidence, deductive and inductive reasoning, and their interrelationships to
gain explicit knowledge of the series of events that surround the commission of a crime.” -
analysis. A foremost forensic analyst and crime scene investigator hasthis to say about
the initial phases of the investigation, during the investigation, and during the adjudication
process. The reconstruction analyst may determine, while the interviews are being conducted, if
the stories being told by the victims, witnesses, and/or suspects are true. By knowing the events
as reconstructed, the detectives conducting the interviews may be able to detect deception or
Crime Scene Reconstruction 3
inconsistencies. The use of this knowledge can be a powerful tool in the hands of an experienced
Who set the standards and who were the forerunners of this process that is used to make
accurate and determinate analysis? Who provided the pattern observed by the investigators at
the scene of today’s homicide setting? The progressive investigative pattern can be seen in
procedural steps to be followed at every crime scene. At the crime scene the following steps are
The problem is that these forensic titles and roles are often mixed, misunderstood, or
result, forensic job titles abound, with more than one to describe the same set of duties—crime
scene investigator, crime scene technician, forensic investigator, evidence technician, forensic
forensic scientist, criminalist, etc. What is important to remember about titles is that they are
expertise. It is the work that defines the professional. It is education, training, experience, and the
quality of work products that define expertise. (Chisum & Turvey 2007: xvi)
for crime scene investigation. How this is executed is summed up in the last sentence; education,
training, experience, and the quality of work. The crime scene should be viewed as a puzzle with
each piece of evidence forming a small but integral part of the overall composite, i.e. a mosaic if
you will. The crime scene investigator must start with an overall evaluation of the crime scene in
question by pausing at the determined point of entry and then scanning the entire crime scene to
form an overall picture (crime scene composite) in their mind. And then they should proceed
through the crime scene paying particular attention to every bit of relevant evidence at that
particular crime scene. This will provide a mental composite to compare the final processed
The history of crime reconstruction can teach us many things. Dr. Joseph E. Bell (1837-
1911) impressed upon his students the necessity of astute observation and inference. Paying
attention to every detail no matter what, and; always careful to note his surroundings, he could
read his patients and students like a book. His influence was noted and extended through one of
his students Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Doyle wrote of his teacher and mentor Dr. Bell:
“I thought of my teacher Joe Bell, of his eagle face, of his curious ways, of his eerie trick
unorganized business [of detective work] to something nearer an exact science. I would
try [to see] if I could get this effect. It was surely possible in real life, so why should I not
make it plausible in fiction? It is all very well to say that a man is clever, but the reader
Crime Scene Reconstruction 5
wants to see examples of this—such examples as Bell gave us every day in the wards.
The first mention of criminalistics came from Dr. Hans Gross and he became known as
the father of criminalistics from his seminal work, “Handbuch fur Unterschunsrichter als System
der Kriminalistik [Criminal Investigation, A Practical Textbook for Magistrates, Police Officers,
and Lawyers (Gross, 1906)]. It was a watershed event in which Gross proclaimed the virtues of
science against intuition, and a systematic approach to holistic crime reconstruction against
objectivity and theory falsification when seeking to reconstruct events. “(Ibid: 17)
Whereas Dr.’s Bell and Gross were definite forerunners in criminalistics, the first crime
laboratory was established by Edmond Locard. It should be specifically noted and categorized in
the memory of any and all investigative criminalists;Locard’s Exchange Principle. This principle
amplifies one of the most salient points in criminology, and that is “every contact leaves a trace.”
over the years by those lecturing and writing authoritatively on the subject. Confusion in the
A recherche des traces n’est pas, autant qu’on pourrait le croire, une innovation des
criminalistes modernes. C’est une occupation probablement aussi vieille que I‘humanité.
Crime Scene Reconstruction 6
Le principe est celui-ci. Toute action de l’homme, et afortiori, l’action violente qu’est un
crime, ne peut pas se dérouler sans laisser quelque marque. L’admirable est Ia variété de
ces marques. Tantôt cc seront des empreintes, tantôt de simples traces, tantôt des taches.
Translation:
Searching for traces is not, as much as one could believe it, an innovation of modern
The principle is this one. Any action of an individual, and obviously, the violent action
constituting a crime, cannot occur without leaving a mark. What is admirable is the
variety of these marks. Sometimes they will be prints, sometimes simple traces, and
sometimes stains.
In 1935, a Spanish translation of this same general principle was provided in Locard
(1935, p. 107):
AJ maihechor le es imposible actuar, y sobre todo actuar con la intensidad que supone 1a acción
criminal, sin dejars indicios de su paso.
Translation: To the criminal, it is impossible for him to act, and mainly to act with the intensity
that supposes criminal action, without leaving indications of his step.” (Ibid: 23-24)
left behind regardless of its minutiaeand it is up to the criminalists to find it! The victim can no
longer speak about what happened to them, but; the evidence (especially trace evidence) can
reveal volumes about what really happened. What questions should be asked of and at any crime
scene? Where do we find the precedent and progenitor of this inquiry? The man responsible for
asking the right questions concerning crime analysis was, Edward Oscar Heinrich (1881-1953).
“Understand this first,” he usually said. “Crime analysis is an orderly procedure. It’s precise and
it follows always the same questions. “Precisely what happened? Precisely when did it happen?
Precisely where did it happen? Why did it happen? Who did it?” “It’s all like a mosaic, and every
Crime Scene Reconstruction 7
fact must be evaluated before it can be fitted into the pattern. In that way, every fact as it is
developed and equated becomes a clue.” (Ibid: 27) And how did it happen was added to the five
There are multiple individuals that set the standards for modern crime scene
technological processing and evaluation. Each one built upon another’s work until we have an
extensive and comprehensive data base of knowledge and applications. There is a caveat to
their work however as was found in the “trial of the century” wherein the excellent works of
LA’s Scientific Services Bureau Director, Barry A.J. Fisher was used to discredit the prosecution.
His own words concerning its use: “During the 0. J. Simpson trial, friends and colleagues from
around the United States and beyond called to tell me that the fifth edition of this textbook was
being used by the defense team to raise questions about the crime scene procedures used by the
police. In a way I was flattered to have become a footnote in the “trial of the century:” however, I
was also concerned that some of the statements made in this text were misconstrued and taken
out of context.
I learned a lesson from this case — there is much more to crime scene investigation than
simply proper police investigative techniques and forensic scientific and technical skill.
Appearance and perception as well as the ability to communicate effectively to a jury are equally
important. I once attended a class at the FBI Academy and still remember the instructor’s advice:
“It’s not only important to be sharp; you have to look sharp, as well!” To put it another way,
appearances and perception are every bit as important as knowledge, skills, and ability, at least in
the eyes of the jury and the public.” (Fisher 2000: Prologue)
It is important to see the ingenuity of the criminal element (and their lawyers)
capitalizing on the genius of forensic scientists by using their own work to challenge the
Crime Scene Reconstruction 8
evidence against them or their client (s) if they represent the suspect. The criminal element
(including their lawyers) is determined to get away with murder. If the Simpson crime scene
would have been properly processed by competent criminalists, the case and jury decision
would certainly be different than it was. The two victims could not speak, but; the evidence
could, but; it was contaminated and became questionable, challenged, and; invalidated! Dr.
Paul L. Kirk (1902-1970) says this about evidence. “This is evidence that does not forget. It
is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses
are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong; it cannot perjure itself; it
cannot be wholly absent. Only its interpretation can err” (Chisum & Turvey 2007:28).
The evidence if uncontaminated at the crime scene; cannot be in error. Only the human
element can cause the evidence to become contaminated and of little or no use whatsoever.
Following the thoughts of Dr. Kirk we can determine the following. (Fisher 2000: 1-5)
1. Physical evidence can prove that a crime has been committed and establish the key elements
of a crime.
2. Physical evidence can place the suspect in contact with the victim or with the crime scene.
3. Physical can establish the identity of persons associated with the crime.
4. Physical evidence can exonerate the innocent.
5. Physical evidence can corroborate the victim’s testimony.
6. A suspect confronted with physical evidence may make admissions or even confess.
7. Physical evidence is more reliable than eyewitnesses to crimes. (Remember Dr. Kirk’s
evaluation on evidence here.)
8. Court decisions have made physical evidence more important.
9. Physical evidence is expected by juries in criminal cases.
We can see the value of evidence in any crime investigation and this importance cannot be
minimized! The proper procedures must be followed at every crime scene, and;this is of
Crime Scene Reconstruction 9
paramount importance! Each piece of evidence speaks, speaks for the victim, and speaks
against the suspect that committed the crime. Each piece of evidence has a voice that must be
heard. Not only a voice, but; a small fragment of a picture that when completed; will give the
evidence, including trace, to be careful and diligent in their collection and observations. All
to jurisdiction, positions, and the usual problems with inter-departmental agendas. Fisher says
“The final element in crime scene investigation is teamwork. The full investigation of
criminal acts involves scores of people who often work for different organizations. This system
was purposefully designed so that no one person or entity can operate independently. As such,
there will always be “turf” issues that arise — “This is my responsibility, you’re not supposed to
do that.” In addition, as we move to larger and more complex criminal justice systems, we are
more likely to be dealing with people who are faceless voices at the other end of the telephone.
For complex systems to work, teamwork is of the utmost importance. Each element of the
criminal investigation — the uniformed officer, the detective, the crime scene specialist, the
forensic scientist, the coroner, the forensic pathologist, the photographer, the prosecutor, and all
the other vital players in the “system” — have to work cooperatively to make the entire process
work. No one element or person is more important than any other person or element. Each
person has a vital role to play and each element must be accomplished in a responsible,
professional and timely manner to make every component function properly.” (Fischer 2000: 20)
"For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for the want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for the
want of a horse the rider was lost, being overtaken and slain by the enemy, all for the want of
care about a horseshoe nail." -- Benjamin Franklin Pay attention to detail! [Emphasis Mine]
A case can be either won or lost at the crime scene. You usually only have one
opportunity to process the crime scene without contamination. If it rains, the evidence can be
washed away. If the crime scene is exposed to the regular human element on a daily basis, the
evidence will be trampled and become useless. The process must be right the first time. Rarely
Crime Scene Reconstruction 10
are there go backs or; do over’s! Usually the first responder or the first officer at the scene is
confronted with a dynamic rapidly changing environment and attention to detail must be their
primary concern. Their subsequent actions may be the determining factor in that particular case.
This role, position, cannot be minimized, and; training for this eventuality must be a
At every crime scene there is evidence that must be preserved for the investigative team.
First responder must take extensive measures to ensure that this does happen. Remembering
Locard’s Exchange Principle that evidence no matter how minute,has been left by the criminal.
And; it is first responder’s duty to preserve this evidence for forensics. First responder will
One of the problems encountered by crime scene investigators can be found in what is
called the “CSI Effect.” Do television CSI type programs correctly portray actualizations or; can
these events be glorified and somewhat inaccurate for glamorization effect? [Lengthy quote
“Forensic fraud and forensic incompetence may only intensify in the future in
investigations are driven by the expectations of the millions of people who watch fake
whodunits on TV. It has contributed to jurors’ desire to see more forensic testimony from
the stand.” (Hempel, 2003, p. 13) In a Nielsen’s rating poll, seven of the top 20 TV
shows were premised on forensic investigations and courtroom dramas, meaning that
more than 120 million viewers, many of whom are prospective jurors in criminal cases,
watch these shows each week (Salmon and O’Brien, 2005). Regrettably, Hollywood’s
Crime Scene Reconstruction 11
portrayal of forensic science is far from accurate, as these “shows tend to embellish and
exaggerate the science, ignore actual time lines for testing and raise expectations of the
general public, law enforcement, and judicial system to an extremely absurd and totally
The CSI effect may exacerbate the forensic fraud problem in two respects. First,
according to many prosecutors, the CSI effect has raised their burden of proof to such an
County, New Jersey, as quoted in Coscarelli, 2005). For instance, the Delaware Supreme
Court held that a trial judge abused his discretion when he failed to reprimand a
prosecutor who complained to a jury that the standard for guilt was no longer “beyond a
reasonable doubt.” The prosecutor argued that the new standard is “the TV expectation
that [criminal defendants) hope folks like you want. Can they meet ‘C.S.I.’? If they don’t
have fingerprints, he can’t be guilty. On TV, they would have found fingerprints. But this
isn’t TV, this is real life” (Boatswain v. State, 2005 Del. LEXIS 168 at *3; the error was
ruled harmless because “the evidence introduced at trial produced overwhelming proof of
It appears that imitations to reality sometimes can prove detrimental to actual crime scene
investigations. However; in the midst of all of this arise programs, sans CSI, that can assist in
courtroom presentations. Computerized Crime Mapping can present a very detailed presentation
of what was found at the scene, what evidence revealed, and place everything in proper viewing
order. As the jurists most likely view television as aneveryday habit i.e. news and programs of
interest, the computerized presentation would be acceptable and understandable from their
jurist’s position and perspectives. Another aid to presentation can be found in modeling the
Crime Scene Reconstruction 12
crime scene. By placing the model before the jury and explaining each element of the crime, the
jury drawstheir own conclusion as to actual events via presentation by the DA’s prosecutorial
team. One picture is worth a thousand words, so they say. Crime scene reconstruction via either
one of these presentations can have an effect towards convicting the suspect if the evidence is
Every crime scene is different, even if the crime is perpetrated by the same serial killer.
The killer makes adjustments from the previous crime as they continue to learn from each crime
they commit. Perhaps the investigator thinks that crime scenes are always the same. But; there
are subtle differences at each crime scene, and; off times the evidence is hidden from view! Each
crime scene is different! As the criminal and their MO”s or signatures are becoming more
complex and harder to discern, science has also become more complex and more sophisticated in
evidence discovery.
“Modern crime and medical examiner/coroner laboratories use a vast array of scientific
specialties to exonerate the innocent and send murderers, rapists, burglars, and swindlers
to jail. Bones tell stories of identity, trauma, and postmortem mutilation. The forensic
anthropologist reads them. The odontologist analyzes teeth and the marks they make.
People constantly exchange bits of themselves with their surroundings. The trace
evidence specialist studies hairs, fibers, pollen, paint, soil, and glass to determine who
was present at a crime scene. The ballistics expert looks at tools and weapons. The
biologist analyzes blood, saliva, and semen to tie perpetrators to victims or locations”
Even the minutest of trace evidence is discernable under the new techniques and
microscopes nowutilized by forensics. Even cases of other eras can be solved using modern
Crime Scene Reconstruction 13
forensic technology. Arsenic remains in the bones and almost every part of the body, long after
the individual has died. One of the major accomplishments for forensic science was the
discovery of hiddentrace evidence in the Pan Am Flight 103 destruction. The airliner was
disintegrated by the explosion. The crime scene was comprised of almost 1,000 square miles.
“The fact that the airplane victims were found to have suffered lung damage from violent
decompression suggested that some catastrophic failure had made the aircraft disintegrate
in the air. In order to establish the sequence of events leading to the disaster, investigators
needed to collect as much of the wreckage as possible even though the debris was widely
scattered. Fragments had drifted in two trails of wreckage covering an area of almost a
thousand square miles of northern England and part of Scotland. Nevertheless more than
four million pieces were traced. Eventually over ninety percent of the airplane's structure
was recovered and used to reconstruct the plane in a huge hangar at a former army
Four million pieces of evidence gathered from approximately 1,000 square miles, and
over ninety percent of the airlines structure was gathered! Evidence suggested that an explosion
had taken place! Eventually investigators found a tiny piece of circuit board and this then leads
them to conclude that a Toshiba radio cassette player was used as the detonation device that
destroyed Pan Am Flight 103. This evidence coupled with the forensic analysis and crime scene
reconstruction led investigators to the people responsible for this atrocity that killed 259 people
on the plane and 11 on the ground. Using a detailed three dimensional reconstruction process led
them to the part of the fuselage that held the bomb. This then led them to the container that held
Crime Scene Reconstruction 14
the baggage with the bomb. Further investigation revealed the baggage was loaded onto the 747
at Frankfort, Germany, and now the conclusion of Pan Am Flight 103 forensically speaking:
“Forensic specialists found garment fibers in the fragments of the case. These were traced
to clothes bought in Malta and flown to Frankfurt on the day of the crash. Investigations on
Malta traced the purchase of the clothes to a Libyan who did not actually board the flight to
London, though the baggage containing the clothes was accepted.” (Owen2000: 142) The crime
scene reconstruction and analysis eventually led investigators to the people responsible for this
terrible crime.
Conclusion:
Every crime scene contains evidence, every crime scene can and will follow Locard’s
Exchange Principle, “every contact leaves a trace.” If the crime scene investigator (s) and their
team are diligent, evidence will be recovered that will eventually lead to the capture and
conviction of the criminal (s) responsible. The diligent crime scene processing team will follow
processing, (like the O.J.Simpson crime scene) haunt investigators to this day. John Douglas and
Mark Olshaker in their book “The Cases That Haunt Us”, make a determination concerning the
Jon Benet Ramsey crime scene, that it was not handled and processed correctly. Thus; the
perpetrator has yet to be discovered. John Douglas has determined that the Ramsey’s are telling
the truth! “After I had spent about two hours with Ramsey, he excused himself to go to the rest
room. I turned to Bryan Morgan, who’d been in the room the entire time, and said simply, “I
believe him… I gave them my analysis thus far and why I believed the Ramsey’s’ stories”
(Douglas & Olshaker 2000). So; after all of this, thiscrime remains unsolved. However; if the
Crime Scene Reconstruction 15
crime scene was processed (reconstructed) correctly, there would probably be different results,
The victim can no longer speak, but; the evidence left behind containsa voice of what
happened to them. It is up to the investigators and the forensic team to hear that voice and
respond with investigative results that form a composite pointing towards the perpetrator (s) of
References
Chisum, & Turvey, Brent E. Crime Reconstruction (1st ed., Vol. 1). San Diego, CA: Elsevier
Douglas, John & Olshaker, Mark. (2000). The Cases That Haunt Us (1st ed., Vol. 1). New York:
Fisher. (2004). Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation (7th ed., Vol. 1). Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press.
Lee, Palmbach, Timothy., & Miller, Marilyn T. (2001). Henry Lee's Crime Scene Handbook (2nd
Owen, David. (2000). Hidden Evidence (1st ed., Vol. 1). Buffalo, NY: Firefly Books (USA) Inc.
Turvey, Brent. (1999). Criminal Profiling An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis (1st
ed., Vol. 1). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. (Original work published 1999)