Forensics Expert Susan Vondrake Stops By

by Andrea Campbell

Today I would like to introduce Susan Vondrake, director of the Research and Development Laboratory with the Illinois State Police. A Renaissance woman in the field of forensic science, Vondrake is also a new fiction writer whose first book will debut shortly.

Q.: What is your book with Oak Tree Press about? Is it finished?

A.: Yes, the book is completed and the first of a series. I plan to publish under S. Connell Vondrake. The book is a completely fictional work not based on any actual case or agency. The book, No Evidence of a Crime, is set in Washington, D. C., and begins with two detectives investigating the murder of a young woman, a murder which appears on the surface to be straightforward, but subtle discrepancies with the evidence start to become apparent. The murder weapon is identified as a Glock handgun, but an eyewitness places the shooter too far from the victim.  

Toxicology finds a high level of alcohol and cocaine in victim’s system, but not in the fetus she is carrying, and DNA links the victim to a gang member -- but she had no apparent gang connections. The detectives ask a forensic scientist to help retest the samples. The new test results soon lead the detectives to realize forensic evidence is being altered.

In No Evidence of a Crime, the clues point to one direction, but there are inconsistencies. The detectives try to force the pieces to fit into the puzzle. When they actually figure out the truth, everything fits together. The same is true in real life. If a control is outside the expected result, or a latent print matches the top of a print on a print card but not the bottom of the print, or a shoe print matches but is the wrong size, all of these things are telling you something. Things like this will gnaw at a good forensic scientist until they figure out what the evidence is telling them, and when they do, they grow as a forensic scientist and the field of forensics grows.

Q.: How did the book come about?

A.: In my current job, I have to drive to different labs around Illinois. I can be in the car six, seven, eight hours in a day. Rather than listening to the radio, I would make up stories in my mind as entertainment for me. A few years ago, I started to put these stories down on paper. Oak Tree Press has been wonderful. In January, I turned the first of three books over to them, and they were very quick in saying they wanted to publish it. I don’t have an agent, just me.

Q.: Can you tell us something about your background, and give us a few words about your crime lab?

A.: I was a forensic toxicologist for ten years with the Illinois State Police (ISP). I then trained people in forensic toxicology for eight years, also with the ISP. In 2003, I became the Director of Training, overseeing training in all areas of forensics, including Latent Prints, DNA, Firearms, Toxicology, Questioned Documents, and Drug and Trace Chemistry. In January of 2009, I was appointed the Director of Research and Development, in addition to continuing my training duties, overseeing the Statewide Training Program.

The Illinois State Police is a very large system, second only to the FBI in size within the US. We have approximately 350 forensic scientists and about 500 total staff. Both the Statewide Training Program and the Research and Development Laboratory have statewide responsibilities within ISP’s Forensic Sciences Command.

Q.: Last year, Congress completed an investigation and report on the state of forensic science; since there is no standardization for all forensic disciplines, do you think the needs of criminal justice are being met?

A.: Let me start by saying, I do believe the needs of the criminal justice system have been met. Throughout my career, I have watched the forensic science community work hard to address most of the issues delineated in the National Academy of Sciences's report, with limited resources and funding. Whether it is through laboratory accreditation, training workshops at technical meetings or individual certification, the forensic community has striven to better themselves as forensic examiners. The IAI certification program of latent print examiners is an excellent example of the spirit of that dedication.  It is a challenging test which is one way of demonstrating the competency of a latent print examiner. 

However, I will also add, I have read the NAS report from cover to cover, recognize the issues it articulates, and believe these issues should not be taken lightly or brushed aside. Our challenges are the new technologies always being developed, which allow us to give better and better answers but cause us to be constantly learning, changing and adapting past practice. How we incorporate these new technologies into our laboratories is paramount to our success as a vital service to the citizens we serve. It is also what drives agencies to submit more and more evidence to take advantage of better techniques and greater sensitivity of results.

I see the NAS review as similar to going to the doctor’s office for a physical, just to see how your body’s holding up; maybe there have been a few aches and pains that caused some concern. If you went to a doctor, and the doctor said you need to eat better and exercise more because you may be on the road to a heart attack, most people would not reply, “No, I’m not.” They would assess what they could do better and how they might improve, maybe eat an apple instead of a candy bar or walk a little more at the mall. The same is true in forensics when reviewing the NAS report. Each individual, their agencies and the community as a whole should assess how they are doing and what they can do better.  If I were a latent prints examiner but had not taken the IAI certification test, that might be an apple I would be chewing on, now.

Q.: How would you suggest that young people interested in a forensic science career proceed?

A.: When I started in 1985, few knew what forensic science was. Now, we can easily have 700 people apply for a forensic scientist position each year so, the interest in the field is there. As long as you have a strong science background, you can become a forensic scientist. If you are interviewing for the job, show your interest in the field (this is not reciting episodes of CSI). Forensic work can be tedious and meticulous. Most scientists are capable of becoming a forensic scientist but, to become a great forensic scientist you need the ability to never give up until all the questions in a case are answered.

Tweet

It's not CSI Folks!

by Kathryn Casey

Over the decades, I've spent a considerable amount of time in courtrooms. It’s part of the job. Awhile back, I sat in on a long trial, seven weeks. (There I am below right.) On the first day, I heard a phrase I hear in nearly every trial I attend these days. The prosecutor had the crime scene specialist on the stand, and the D.A. said something on the order of, “It’s not exactly CSI, is it, Sir?”

The investigator said, “No, it’s not.”

It may seem odd that a television program was a topic of testimony in a murder trial, but the CSI-type shows come up more often than not in courtrooms. Prosecutors increasingly feel compelled to defuse the myth, to explain to jurors who watch the sophisticated CBS series and others like it that not all the gadgets and techniques they see in television are gospel, and that even the ones that do exist often aren’t available in run-of-the-mill, budget-strapped cop shops.

What types of crime solving methods? You know, like the holographic facial reconstruction on Fox’s Bones. At times, it can actually be pretty comical. I once had lunch with a homicide cop and a crime scene officer, while they laughed about a CSI Miami episode in which a murder was solved based on an ant bite. Bite evidence is, of course, not unusual. But in this case, the TV sleuths measured and mapped an ant bite on a corpse, reconstructing the little critter’s minuscule mandible, then linked the resulting information not only to a certain species but – forgive me if this is wrong I am getting it second hand – to a specific ant colony. Wham! Crime solved. Wow. I was impressed. But everyone else at the table found the plot less than plausible.

Why is the CSI effect a bad thing in a courtroom? Prosecutors fear jurors who watch such unrealistic, forensic heavy programs may expect too much. They may expect absolute physical evidence to convict.

Of course, there’s another side to the coin. Many defense attorneys object to the CSI comment. Why? For the defense, it’s not usually a bad thing for juries to assume all the stuff on CSI is real world. If they believe the TV show is gospel, jurors figure their local P.D. hasn’t met the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a case without iron-clad forensic evidence. After all if CSI is viewed by many as a real-world guideline for how a crime scene is investigated, what’s to be made of a police department without equipment to measure an ant bite and conclusively tie it to the correct ant hill? Of course that assumes a police department has an unlimited budget, a state-of-the-art lab, and the likes of David Caruso on staff.

Maybe it’s not surprising or new that we’re getting drawn in by dramatic presentations on television and confusing them with real life. I remember the first murder trial I sat through as a fledgling reporter, more than two decades ago. I’d grown up watching Perry Mason on my family’s black-and-white television, and I was shocked that witnesses weren’t allowed to ramble on without waiting for lawyers’ questions and, even more so, that neither the prosecutor nor the defense attorney cornered a single witness on the stand and spurred a confession.

Actually, to this day, I’m still waiting to be in a courtroom where a suspect yells out: “All right, I did it!”

Tweet

TV Crime Drama—the 'CSI Effect' Again and Again

by Andrea Campbell

I’ve been talking about the differences between TV crime drama and reality for about five years now. I’ve even given programs about the subject for mystery and crime novel writers with a presentation I call "The CSI Effect: 7 Key Differences between TV Crime Drama and Reality."

The live program is fun because I bring along personal protection equipment and have an audience member “suit up” while I’m talking. And of course it is a Tyvek HAZMAT type outfit; and then we compare it to what the chicks on the CSI shows are wearing.

This week I got a press release that some researchers at the Mayo Clinic who compared CSI and CSI: Miami to actual U. S. homicide data. No surprise, they discovered clear differences. Timothy Lineberry, M.D., a psychiatrist at Mayo Clinic, says, “We make a lot of our decisions as a society based on information that we have, and television has been used to provide public health messages.”

Those two particular shows, CSI and CSI: Miami, were used because of their enormous viewing audience, somewhere around 43 million viewers every year. Mainly the Mayo Clinic investigators used the Center for Disease Control’s National Violent Death Reporting System to compare data with the television portrayals. They discovered the biggest discrepancies involved relationships, alcohol, and race where characterizations of perpetrators and victims were concerned.

Apparently, actual statistics say that drugs and alcohol affect both victim and offender at the time of the crime in reality—and that was one of the differences from what the TV shows portray. The other main difference they found was regarding what race was more likely to be involved and on the television shows primarily they used Caucasians who did not know their attackers. In real life, however, whites are not the majority of offenders and, often, real victims know or were intimately involved with their attackers in the past.

"If we believe that there is a lack of association with alcohol, that strangers are more likely to attack, and that homicide doesn’t represent particular groups of people, it’s difficult to create public health interventions that the general public supports. We make a lot of our decisions as a society based on information that we have, and television has been used to provide public health messages." — Dr. Lineberry

I have a Web site blog called The CSI Effect, which I gave up writing about for lack of interest. I’ve written about these differences and have been trying to sell a book proposal on another Web site (for about four years now), not only about these very specific topics, but about the ramifications of how these misconceptions are perpetrated on the public and how they enter into real life—in the courtroom.

For example, years ago when people did not know as much about forensics they were little concerned about what types of evidence were brought into court and how they were collected. One could say that in the “old days,” the prosecutors took advantage of that notion at every turn. Obviously, we know now that the landscape has changed. Juries are more inclined to ask about a lack of evidence but, they also are more misinformed in many instances and take an unrealistic stance—such as expecting DNA evidence for car thefts—when that was never being done.

So the game has been upped. And in my last two articles, we’ve been talking about the recent denigrating reports from the National Academy of Sciences on behalf of Congress about forensic science and how the researchers found the industry lacking. It's not good, we know.

But the TV producers do do those things; take more than poetic license with drama: portray white, rich, good-looking victims—because they need the show to sell to advertisers and if we saw the real low level of most crime, we’d change the channel—not sexy or appealing enough.

So television will continue to push the entertainment envelope away from reality. Reality sucks. Ask any detective. If he has the time to talk to you. Now that we’ve ferreted out these discrepancies yet again—it’s getting real old for me as a topic—let’s support science, give the labs the manpower and funds they need, educate the juries better, and kick some criminal ass.

Tweet

DNA Matters, Except When it Doesn't?

by Laura James

"DNA ought to humble us. But it doesn't humble some people."

--Attorney Jed Stone

The Chicago Tribune ran a story by Steve Mills recently about some pending murder cases in Lake County, Illinois that ought to put the voters of that county on notice: your local department of justice has a moron on staff. If you have more integrity than your local prosecutor's office, you need to elect someone else.

In four rape - murder cases - involving female victims who were eight, nine, eleven, and sixty-eight - the DNA from the semen did not match the man charged with the rape and murder.

The prosecutor is pursuing these cases anyway, waving away the DNA evidence and the science upon which it is founded as a "red herring."

You read that right - these girls, this elderly woman were raped and some also murdered. Semen was recovered in each case. It did not match the suspect. The suspect was charged anyway, despite the fact that the prosecutor offers no logical explanation for the presence of semen that does not match. If there were evidence of two assailants, this might make sense. But there's not. And it doesn't.

Despite these DNA results, despite the fact that the source of DNA is semen, the prosecutor is getting convictions. How? He claims that the semen/DNA is from "contamination." That argument was not only permitted but was successful in the case of Juan Rivera, convicted of murdering Holly Staker again last month, even though DNA testing proved that he was not the source of semen found in the victim's body.

Where is the flipping judge, I'd like to know - how could he let this case get to a jury in the first place? How could he let the prosecutor make such specious arguments? From here he looks like yet another empty robe sucking up an unearned paycheck.

Some observers - like the Daily Kos, Mothers on a Mission to Stop Violence, Chicago Lawyer Magazine, Reason Magazine, and Northwestern University law faculty - are rolling their eyes at the ludicrous dismissal of the DNA evidence. But they don't have a vote, and jurors are buying it.

As one observer notes, it's "very rare" for a prosector to continue with a case when DNA excludes a suspect.

Unfortunately, I know it's not really that rare. A DNA exclusion did not prevent Michigan authorities from imprisoning Nathaniel Hatchett for rape. Twelve years is what it took before someone who knows something about DNA refused to accept the prosecutor's flimsy arguments. Shame, shame on the judges who permitted this man to go to prison for rape when the seminal DNA excluded him as the rapist!

And it happened in Toledo. I watched it happen on television in 2006 when Father Gerald Robinson was convicted of murder despite the fact that a male DNA profile obtained from the victim's clothing and bloody fingernails did not match him. The prosecutor's argument? The DNA is from "contamination." But there's some good news in that case: The Ohio Innocence Project just joined his defense team.

I am seeing more and more of these cases - representing more and more prosecutors who won't let a lil' ol' thing like DNA get in the way of a conviction. Alas, some juries are willing to accept this. Indeed these cases are becoming so common I wish someone would coin a term for it. "DNA non-match" cases isn't very catchy.

For many years, lawyers and journalists have lamented what is sometimes called the "CSI Effect" -- the expectation by jurors that cutting-edge scientific techniques will give them a definite answer in every case.

What can we call it when jurors ignore DNA that doesn't match the man on trial?

Tweet

C.S. … I Don’t Think So!

by Diane Dimond

Emmy Award winning TV producer Jerry Bruckheimer has let me down. He’s let all of us down.

For years we’ve been riveted by his prime time programs: The CSI franchise based in Miami, Las Vegas and New York, Cold Case, Without a Trace and others. I am one of Bruckheimer’s biggest fans.

But on a recent episode of CSI Miami Bruckheimer’s quality control broke down. He allowed his writers to get away with poetic license that could seriously damage law enforcement efforts.

In an episode called “The Tipping Point” a thug declares of his ‘hood, “God gave up on this neighborhood a long time ago.” And, indeed, we learn the population has been scared into silence by the violent actions of the local gang. But then a do-gooder named Reverend Mike is murdered. Investigators are stymied until one brave young person calls Crime Stoppers with vital information.

This is a wonderful message for those urban numbskulls who still think cooperating with police is “snitching.”

But what do Bruckheimer’s writers have the authorities say when they learn there is a Crime Stoppers tip? Are they thankful? No.

“Those people are just trying to make a buck off the county. Can we trust them?” one ignorant character asks another.

Within minutes we see the tipster, a worried young woman named Yolanda, exiting an elevator at police headquarters asking, “So, you can guarantee no one will know I’m the one who called?” And she is reassured by the lead detective that all tips are confidential. Later, as the officer scrolls through a computer list of other Crime Stopper calls (and we clearly see a roster of names and address) another CSI dumbbell dismissively questions the detective’s action saying, “The tip line? I thought it was mostly crackpots!”

Now, if any of the program’s writers bothered to check facts they would have found that Crime Stoppers is nothing like they described. First, the reward fund is 100% donated from civilian sources and takes no county, state or federal money. Doing so would require a paper trail no one wants. Why? Because all tips are strictly confidential! No one would ever ask for a caller’s name or address and that information is never stored on some computerized master list. When someone with a tip phones Crime Stoppers they are given a unique tipster ID number and told to keep calling back to see if they are due a reward check.

For CSI Miami to show tipster Yolanda being outed and brought into a public cop shop is impossible. It would never happen.

And, so what occurs next in the episode is completely inconceivable. Somehow the street gang finds out Yolanda has been talking to police. She’s hog-tied and left inside a building that’s about to be obliterated by a massive bomb. She’s saved at the last minute because the lead character, Horatio Caine, pulls a Dudley Do Right.

The lesson left from this CSI Miami episode was that if you snitch you’re in danger. If you talk to the police about a crime the bad guy will find out and get you. If you’re lame enough to call Crime Stoppers you must be a “crackpot”. How many young people saw that episode and lodged that lesson in their brain? And I’ll bet it’s not just Crime Stopper personnel who cringed at the program. Good detectives everywhere welcome anonymous tips, especially in murder cases. They’ve already got to fight the rap-music message that “snitchin’ ain’t cool.” They don’t need a popular prime time TV show (dedicated to crime fighting, no less!) helping spread that self-destructive line.

Look, I’m a writer. I value the First Amendment, character development and all that. What I don’t value is lazy writing that leaves the wrong impression when the real facts are so compelling.

As I, coincidentally, wrote in this space recently Crime Stoppers has been in existence for more than 30 years. Its success is directly attributed to good citizens who do the right thing. In the U.S. more than 800 thousand cases, like murder, rape, armed robbery and child molestation have been cleared thanks to Crime Stopper tipsters. More than a billion dollars in property has been recovered, 4 billion dollars worth of illegal drugs.

At the end of the CSI episode the bad guys are busted because Yolanda picked up a phone. She got a thousand dollar reward after her information led to arrests. That’s a scenario CSI got right. It happens every day in all 50 states and 24 countries where Crime Stoppers operates.

Come on, Hollywood. You don’t have to make it up. Just follow the facts – especially when you’re dealing with something as crucial as Crime Stoppers. And please, Jerry Bruckheimer, don’t re-run that episode!

Tweet

What Is It About Crime?

by Katherine Scardino

Last night, I went to a book store in my city, Houston, called Murder by the Book, and it was a thriving place. One of my associates in Women in Crime Ink, Kathryn Casey, has written a novel called Singularity, and she had a book signing at this shop, which specializes in crime stories. Kathryn’s book is a murder mystery.

I looked around the shop and noted how many people were there and started wondering: What is this draw people have toward crime, blood and guts?

I started thinking about all the books and television shows about crime - CSI, The Closer, Miami Vice, Forensic Files, and movies too many to mention. They are all popular - lots of action, lots of bone-chilling mystery.

But don’t we all hate crime? Don’t we complain about too many people committing crimes, which raises our tax dollars?

More crime makes us have to build new prisons and jails, make new courts, hire more judges, clerks, staff, pay lawyers to defend indigent defendants? And all this costs money - lots of money.

So where is the attraction? Is it like the gawker on the freeway looking at a car accident, slowing down a line of traffic behind him? Why would this driver want to see the sorrow and pain of other people? Are we all like that?

I think we get a neurophysiologic high with crime and deviant acts - a sensory high - just like that guy on the freeway who slows down and looks at that car accident expecting to see a little blood. But what is it about tragedy that draws us closer. Wouldn't it seem more instinctive to run from danger, rather than slow down for a better look?

I think we get a sense of completion from crime novels, television shows, and movies. There is a beginning, middle, and an end - all nicely tied in a bow. We are at some point introduced to the killer, and usually there is an ending which includes a police officer with handcuffs leading the bad guy off to jail.

Life for most of us is a mess. It’s like a jumbled up set of facts and circumstances that usually do not end with a nicely tied bow. There are lots of loose ends, unanswered questions.

Why did this happen to me? Why did I do that? Was it my fault? How can I fix it?

If you think about it, life is just the middle part. We do not remember being born, and death is not part of life. Still we exist and remember the middle.

But crime stories are exciting and after the murderer is unmasked, everything falls into place like a jigsaw puzzle - much unlike our lives.

Tell us why you read crime stories. What is it about them? When we're winding down from our day, and reach for a book on our nightstands, why select A Descent Into Hell, for example, instead of Restful Sleep? What brought you here, to a Web site which focuses on all things crime?

Tweet

The CSI Effect

by Jenna Jackson

Some of the most popular shows on television right now—CSI, Law and Order, Criminal Minds—are having a real effect on courtrooms across the country. When I started at CBS News 10 years ago, most of the people I would call for a story had no idea how DNA testing actually worked—they had no clue it was blood spatter, not splatter.

These days, people are far more savvy. Nearly every day, I'm asked a question that throws me—what kind of DNA typing was done at a scene, whether a person was polygraphed and by which expert. People know to ask detailed questions about criminal cases—and they learn most of what they know from watching TV dramas.

But most of the time, I have to explain that although CSI portrays a criminal investigation one way (DNA takes minutes, instead of months), real life is a lot slower and more complicated.

I think juries have become much more savvy, too—and they expect a lot more. This can be good and bad. It has certainly made trials more interesting to watch. Lawyers on both sides of the courtroom are forced to ratchet up the drama when presenting their cases—juries watch enough of these shows that they expect a show in the courtroom.

They also often want real, physical evidence to connect a defendant to a crime in order to convict. This is making things a little tougher on prosecutors, who for years have had the clear advantage from the opening of a trial.

Juries seem to expect a case where all the loose ends are tied up—but most real-life cases aren't delivered to a prosecutor in a neat little package. This is especially true in cold cases where evidence at the scene may have been scarce or not properly collected—and where witnesses have disappeared or died.

I recently covered a case in Houston where there was absolutely no physical evidence connecting the defendant to the murder scene. These types of cases are difficult for all sides—and tend to leave unanswered questions even after a verdict is returned.

But there is a case right now—half a world away in Perugia, Italy—where physical evidence was collected at the scene of a brutal murder. A suspect was arrested within days—but the physical evidence doesn't necessarily match the suspect in this case. She just matches the police theory of the crime, which can sometimes be an entirely different thing than concrete evidence. Amanda Knox (pictured above), a Seattle college student living in Perugia to attend college, definitely gave police reason to be suspicious. But as every good detective knows, people can act suspicious for a number of reasons.

48 Hours is airing a one-hour show on this case Saturday at 9 p.m. CDT. It centers around two beautiful college students—one, a victim of a vicious murder, and the other, a possible victim of an overzealous police force. I didn't have anything to do with producing this particular case, but it is so intriguing because of the issues it raises: how an American is treated as the target of a criminal investigation in a foreign country; how police can sometimes get tunnel vision and focus on one suspect to the exclusion of other possibilities; and how scenarios are created that make false confessions possible and almost probable.

Because there were so many questions in this case, 48 Hours hired a private eye to conduct his own investigation. He came up with a stunning theory of his own: Amanda Knox was being railroaded by the Italian authorities.

This case is one of those that makes you realize you can't always trust how a story looks in the beginning—once everything unfolds, it can turn into an entirely different tale. Even after nearly a decade with this show, I learn that lesson every single day.

Be sure to check out this week's Mystery Man for more details—he has a unique, behind-the-scenes vantage point of this particular case.

Tweet

CSI: The Experience

Crime Scenes

In Houston, Texas, April is the coolest month. Not really. If there's any month that fits that bill it would be closer to February, which is when one of the coolest exhibits touring the country opened in Houston. And April is the last month to check out CSI: The Experience at the city's Museum of Natural Science. If you happen to live in the Houston area, come out and solve a crime this weekend. If you're in other parts of the country, watch for this interactive exhibit in your area. From the museum Web site:

CSI: The Experience immerses guests in hands-on science while leading them through the challenge of solving a crime mystery. The interactive, multimedia exhibit brings to life fundamental scientific principles, numerous scientific disciplines, and the most advanced technology and techniques used today by crime scene investigators and forensic scientists. Through hands-on activities featuring real equipment and multimedia presentations, guests will sample the following science fields and understand the significance of each in cracking crimes.

CSI: The Experience was developed by the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History and Bob Weis Design Island Associates with support from CBS Consumer Products, the cast and crew of the television show, and the National Science Foundation. The traveling exhibit opened in Boston last year and it's already been in Chicago. Its next stop after Houston is in Columbus, Ohio. Through 2010, CSI: The Experience will exhibit in St. Paul, Minnesota; Los Angeles, California; Portland, Oregon; Fort Wort, Texas; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

An overview from the Houston Web site:

Enter the Briefing Theater to watch a fast-paced introduction to CSI: The Experience on a giant flat-screen TV. Anthony E. Zuiker, creator of television’s CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, greets visitors. Then, real-life forensic scientist Ron Singer explains the scientific principles visitors will experience in the exhibit. Finally, CSI’s lead investigator, Gil Grissom (pictured right at the exhibit), steps in and introduces himself as your CSI supervisor and issues a challenge: “Keep an open mind,” he warns. “Remember, the dead can’t speak for themselves. Listen to what the evidence is saying.”

Begin an intriguing journey to solve a crime mystery by entering one of three very different crime scenes:

In “A House Collided,” a car has smashed through the living room window of a house in a quiet suburb. A man with his seatbelt on is in the driver’s seat, slumped over. The windshield is shattered and the car door is shut. In the living room, there are muddy shoeprints, drops of blood and a stain near the sofa. A pizza box is open with pepperoni pizza spilled on the floor. A beer bottle is by the car door, and a hand print of blood – or is it pizza sauce? – is found on the hood.

In “Who Got Served?” a young woman has been found dead in an alley behind an old Las Vegas motel. She is sprawled beneath a dumpster overflowing with trash and is wearing a waitress outfit with a nametag that reads “Penny.” There is a tire tread across her abdomen, and a photo of her has been ripped in half and tossed away nearby. No other injuries are visible. Among the trash, a handbag and a cell phone are visible.

In “No Bones About It!” a hiker has stumbled across what looks like a human skull sticking out of the ground, with a visible hole in it. It is partially buried by silt and debris. Other bones are scattered underneath the dirt. Among the remains, there are still tattered remnants of a coat and what appears to be a backpack.

Beginning the Investigation

After exiting the crime scenes, refer to a large wall of crime scene photos and clues that might have been missed. Then, begin to analyze evidence in two highly interactive lab areas, each featuring multiple stations that present different kinds of evidence testing.

Visitors investigating “A House Collided” will compare fingerprints of the victim to the evidence; examine blood spatter patterns; observe the shoes of the victim and tracks found in the room; compare fibers on the victim’s clothes with fibers in the room; analyze the victim’s blood-alcohol level; compare DNA of the victim with evidence; and eventually discover the cause of death.

For “Who Got Served?” visitors review the evidence found on a cell phone; examine the contents of the handbag; inspect the purse and headshot for fingerprints; establish the time of death; review DNA samples; test powder from the handbag at the scene; and discover the cause of death.

Visitors working on “No Bones About It” analyze the bullet from the skull and hairs found with the body; examine a seed found in the fabric of the tattered shirt; test the DNA of an animal’s hair; compare dental records to the victim; and discover the cause of death.

Cracking the Case

Grissom's Office - Here lies the moment of truth. At the end of the exhibit, visitors present their interpretation of the evidence and are asked to answer a series of multiple choice questions, based on their scientific findings, on touch screens located in this area. After completing these questions, they will get feedback from Grissom and see if they have cracked the case.

Visitors will understand the principles underlying the following areas of forensic science: DNA identification, toxicology, forensic anthropology, entomology, forensic pathology, forensic art, firearm and toolmark identification, information technology, latent prints, and blood-spatter analysis. Also, visitors will use information technology in their investigations to: Simulate the analyses of clues using database technology; comprehend the role of human judgment, even when using advanced technology; compare historical methods of crime scene investigations with today’s advanced forensic sciences.

Don't miss this first-of-its-kind exhibit. Visit Houston's Museum of Natural Science. If you really want to know who committed the above crimes, visit CSI: The Experience. Preview the video here or check out the exhibition guide here.

Tweet