Wednesday, September 30, 2009

The Grandma Bandits

by Kathryn Casey

I'm not used to seeing suspects who look like grandmothers. Oh, there's the occasional black widow like
Betty Neumar, women of a certain age who have a trail of dead husbands and suddenly someone adds up two and two and gets, surprise, four, the four being that they may not all have died of natural causes. But for the most part, grandmothers aren't the predominant demographic for murderers, rapists, or, I would have thought, bank robbers.

So when I read about the "Grandma Bandit," as the FBI is calling her, I've got to admit that I was pretty shocked. I mean, does she look like a bank robber (photo top left)? A school crossing guard, Wal-Mart greeter, short order cook, or the sweet but maybe a little eccentric lady who lives next door? Sure. But a bank robber?

It seems however, if one believes the FBI, that's exactly what this matronly woman is doing in the surveillance photo from last Friday, not once but twice, to two Houston banks, four miles apart. Not only that, she's described in the news articles as brazen. She drove up in her white SUV, walked inside, confronted a teller, and threatened to pull a weapon. She didn't bother to wear a disguise, and, unlike some bank robbers, offered no excuses, for instance that she has her Medicare supplement, a tummy tuck or cataract surgery to pay for.

I know this isn't a laughing matter. I mean, somebody could get hurt, plus she's stealing other people's money. But she just appears to be such an unlikely candidate for a bank robber. The FBI spokesman theorized that in this dour economy more desperate people are turning to crime to pay the bills.

Wondering how often this has happened before, I Googled the phrase, "grandma bank robber," and up popped another case, that of a woman in 2008 who robbed the same Chino, California, bank twice, once lifting her shirt to expose a device with wires attached to her chest, presumably a bomb. (photo above right) At the time, she said she was being victimized by others, and a note she presented read: "Please help this lady. She's strapped."

I don't know if they mentioned that her hair looks like a white wig, but in the description in the BOLO -- be on the lockout for -- it did point out that she wore prescription glasses. In a later photo from another robbery, she wore a dark wig and a sweatshirt with a hood that made her look a little like a geriatric Unibomber. I looked but couldn't find anywhere that she'd been identified and/or arrested. I'm hoping that if she was forced into this crime spree, she's safe now. (If you know how this case was resolved, comment and tell us.)


A little more Googling and another Grandma Bandit turned up, in 2007, this time in Pittsburgh. This particular senior citizen, Marilyn Devine, was 76 years old. According to the news articles, she pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 23 months of house arrest and 20-years probation. At the time, Devine's husband, Ray, claimed that his wife was in a sad state around the time of the robbery, needing money to help their son, "because that's just the kind of mom she is."

So what did this session of Net surfing teach me? To remember that stereotypes are often wrong and that it's dangerous to jump to conclusions about what type of person does what. Sadly, people of any age can be desperate enough to break the law, even grandmas.


Tuesday, September 29, 2009

New or Pending Science on the Horizon

by Andrea Campbell

I had a difficult time choosing what to write for today. I often forget what I've told you, and I don't want anything to be too remedial—people have become pretty savvy with all the forensic information on current cases in the news. So I thought I would make a small departure and tell you about some new science or new ideas that are either in the works or coming down the pike, so-to-speak.

Sharing Faces


First the International Justice and Public Safety Information Sharing Network, also called Nlets (thank you, who could remember the other?) has just decided to coordinate policies for putting together an exchange service to share drivers' license photos. This was listed as a top priority of law enforcement for a long time. A pilot program is underway in North and South Carolina and Virginia. It would also allow them to share electronic images from motor vehicle departments for the sole purpose of identification. It seems like such a no-brainer, wonder what the hang-up is or was getting it going? (Link: See http://www.nlets.org/ for more information)

Face Recognition


Speaking of faces, the images on surveillance videos are really bad most of the time. The businesses either recycle the tapes, or have old (or even nonworking) cameras. A computer program is being developed to improve the image processing technology. The underlying technology is supposed to have face detection algorithms. I'm told that shape and appearance models lock on to the three-dimensional shape of the face in each video frame. This technology allows it to be rotated to a frontal view. That way a frame-to-frame registration of the face is combined and then a higher resolution is constructed. Yes, it sounds like something we've seen in the movies. Another idea, Active 3D Face Capture, is the brainchild of NIJ-sponsored project with the help of GE Global Research and PPR. It would set up video surveillance for large areas like a schoolyard or parking lot (where images get lost in the haze and bad resolution).

NamUs


Not so much a technology but a database, the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System or NamUs, is the first online repository for missing person records and unidentified decedent cases. It will eventually consist of two databases, one with records of no-name decedents and the other with missing persons reports. It was launched in July 2007. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, medical examiners and coroners handle about 4,400 unidentified decedent cases every year and 1,000 of those remain nameless. (Link See: http://www.namus.gov/)

Cell Phone Forensics


Obviously the cell phone has progressed and affords us major capabilities now such as: voicemail, music or MP3 players, camera, video camera, voice recorder, Web browser, email, text messenger, address book, calendar, notepad, games, applications and more. And law enforcement know that any technology that can be used for legitimate uses can also be made to handle illegal aims as well. The potential for cell phones holding evidence cannot be overlooked. What is however overlooked is, the capability of police officers and detectives knowing how to preserve and retrieve all this data correctly. There are hurdles with an infinite number of custom-designed operating systems, different network providers, unfamiliar file systems, proprietary cables, chargers and connectors. For investigators who find this information overwhelming (who doesn't?) state, local and federal agencies are trying to create strategies for handling cell phone technology and disbursing it to investigative agencies. (Link See: http://www.bk.forensics.com/ also look for Cell Phone Forensics: An Overview & Analysis Update, NIST, http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir/nistir-7387.pdf)

Chemical Signatures

I thought this was a very cool product because I have talked to law enforcement officers who work drug cases! The danger is horrendous. I doubt if any agencies here have one of these: a handheld meth-detection unit. It's called the ID-2 from Decatur Electronics. It allows an officer to pick-up trace elements of methamphetmine or pseudoephedrine without physical contact. Yep, it reads through the baggie. The scanner pulses ultraviolet photoemission spectroscopy to detect the elements of meth chemicals as they react to the light. (Link See: http://www.decaturradar.com/)


Sunday, September 27, 2009

Did She "Ask for It"? Does it Matter?

By Pat Brown

A victim is a housewife, college student, go-go dancer, model, teacher, nun, virgin, slut, whore, churchgoer, caretaker, drug user, pervert, cop, criminal, social worker, thief.

She may be sweet. She may be a bitch. She may not have deserved it. Then, again, maybe she sorta did.

What a victim is, and what a victim does, doesn't matter. Or, what a victim is, and what a victim does, makes all the difference.

Over and over, we hear that the behavior of the victim is not the issue. No one deserves to be murdered. No one deserves to be raped. Even the suggestion that the victim might have in some way contributed to her unfortunate demise is considered blasphemy. When pushed, it might be admitted, in a politically correct manner, that the victim "may have lived a high-risk life-style that increased her chance of becoming a victim." This is a nice way of saying the victim's personal decisions and behavior got her in trouble. Her unfortunate choices range from opening the door without knowing who is on the other side, jogging at dusk, or working the streets as a prostitute.

The continued white-washing of the victim's character, and the refusal to examine her actions, can make it harder to find, profile and try attackers. We think we are doing women a favor when we refuse to acknowledge that their behavior helped make them victims. We are, in fact, clouding the thinking of investigators and jurors in their abilities to identify and convict the perpetrators of rape and sexual homicide.

Let's examine how this political viewpoint of women's responsibility has affected these areas.

The investigation of a sexual homicide depends heavily on accurate information about the victim. Victimology includes the past history of the victim, the personality and habits of the victim in the recent months prior to the crime, and the activities and relationships the victim was involved with in the minutes, hours, and days before the murder.

The desire to believe that a totally crazy bogeyman appeared out of nowhere and, for no reason, murdered this totally innocent person, keeps many relatives and friends from informing the police investigators of dangerous activities and habits that could have set up the victim as the target in the killer's crime. Since the victim didn't deserve to be killed, then nothing she could have done should be relevant to her death.

This belief wastes valuable time and leads that could have led them rapidly to the perpetrator. The longer it takes for truthful information to reach the police, the more time the offender has to move or eliminate evidence, create alibis and generally disappear under the radar. When investigators accept this bogeyman theory, they too can overlook important information.

Still, investigators mustn't carelessly attribute risky behaviors as factors leading to a rape or murder. A prostitute is not necessarily murdered by a john, nor is a drug dealer always killed over drugs. Hitchhikers aren't necessarily murdered by the people who pick them up. It's entirely possible that none of the victim's less-than-desirable behaviors contributed in any way to her death. A drug-using prostitute with a real mean streak could be hit over the head and dragged into the bushes on her way home from church. The perpetrator may have no clue to her personality or lifestyle. She was just there; a victim of opportunity.

Wonderful traits can make someone a target as well. Take the horrific case of Annie Le (left with her fiancé), Yale student killed by a worker in the lab. She was beautiful, brilliant, sweet and friendly ... maybe too sweet and too friendly. Maybe she was overly polite to someone she should have avoided or maybe she was just so perfect and successful that her killer resented her existence. Good traits can get you killed, too.

Investigators must analyze all elements of victimology before making any conclusions. Even after a theory is developed, room must be left for the other possibilities, regardless of how unlikely. Paying close attention to all aspects of the victim's life as quickly as possible increases investigative leads and brings to police attention suspects who might  otherwise have gone undiscovered. 

In the courtroom, the defense often focuses on the victim's character. In a strange twist of reasoning, the politically correct refusal to make the victim responsible in any way for her fate allows the defense to assassinate her character.  

Because no one deserves to be killed, and no one contributes to the killer's choice of victim or decision to kill, then the victim must be totally innocent and the perpetrator must be totally guilty -- a hard case to prove. 

When the issue is seen so black and white, the jury is emotionally prepared to love the