More Forensics and Fiction: a book review

by Andrea Campbell

I have conducted a few interviews with my friend and colleague, Doug Lyle, M.D.  Each of his books that have been sent to me to review has set forth promises for the reader and, in my estimation, all expectations have been met. That's why I was happy to receive his latest book, a research title for writers (and lovers of writers and fiction) called More Forensics and Fiction.

Now Doug, also professionally known as D.P. Lyle, M.D., has also acted as a consultant and advisor on various television shows like Law & Order, CSI: Miami, Monk and House, so I know he is adept at research and his medical background makes him one of the best.

Doug also has a web site, The Writer's Forensics blog, that has provided more than enough material for this latest book--due out in April--and has also well-supplied two previous titles, Murder and Mayhem: A Doctor Answers Medical and Forensic Questions for Mystery Writers, and the second, Forensics and Fiction: Clever, Intriguing, and Downright Odd Questions from Crime Writers.  In these volumes, Dr. Lyle answers questions, forensic questions, yes--but more interesting, questions from fiction writers and authors who need to add verisimilitude to their stories, and who can't afford to create scenarios unless they are right. Consequently, this makes for a lot of screwy and somewhat "out there" criminal plotting, and also reflects on the type of creative sketches and stretches of the imagination and that makes this book two-fold: a research vehicle and an interesting read.


There are no "typical" questions as these are forming the basis of fictional stories that involve crime and essentially made-up situations. The questions are however, broken up into parts such as: Traumatic Injuries, Illnesses, Doctors and Hospitals in Part 1, to another part such as: The Coroner, the Body and the Autopsy in Part IV, and, what could be my favorite and final section Odds and Ends, Mostly Odds making up Part V. And, of course, one of the fun parts is that these questions come from storytellers both famous and not, whose goal it is to want their readers to turn the page, so some of them are truly "out there."

Just to illustrate a few of the questions inside More Forensics and Fiction: Will snake venom injected into fruit cause death? What happens when someone swallows razor blades? and Can DNA be obtained from a half-eaten bagel?

And actually, here is a partial answer to a particular question and it is also related to one of my pet peeves (I will explain after): "Do teeth and their fillings remain in a skull twenty years after death? A.: Actually, the teeth often fall from the skull and jawbone. This is due to decay of the gum and the socket tissues that anchor the teeth in place. It depends on the degree of decay and how long after death the skull is found. You can construct your story either way..."(and so on).


As for my own pet peeve, how can someone find an ancient skull and the lower part, the mandible, is still attached?  "In decayed bodies, the mandible becomes detached from the skull as the temporomandibular joint and supporting ligaments deteriorate," yet we often see the skull with the jaw attached, even after discovery of years!


More Forensics and Fiction, by D.P. Lyle, paperback, 432 pages, Medallion Press, April 2012.

Tweet

Truth, Justice and Forensic Evidence

by Diane Fanning

We all realize that statistics can be manipulated to prove points, that polls can be slanted by how a question is asked, that news reporting itself demonstrates bias by what the media chooses to cover, if nothing else. However, we expect forensic science to be the gold standard of truth--complete, objective, honest. We want to believe that. Learning that forensics, too, does not live up to its objective, TV-drama-polished image makes us all feel vulnerable to the vagaries of uneven justice.

North Carolina is facing that truth right now. It began with the 1991 discovery of the body of Jaquetta Thomas at the end of a cul de sac in Raleigh. In 1993, Gregory Taylor (above left) was convicted of her first-degree homicide. In February of this year, the North Carolina Innocence Commission three-judge panel exonerated Gregory Taylor in part because Duane Deaver, an SBI lab analyst who reported "chemical indications for the presence of blood" on Taylor's SUV, failed to mention in his final serology report that a more sensitive, confirmatory test for blood was negative. Taylor was released after spending nearly 17 years in prison, according to the commission, for a crime he did not commit.

In the aftermath of this revelation, the North Carolina Attorney General Ray Cooper ordered an independent review of the State Bureau of Investigation's Forensic Laboratory. The resulting report cited "serious issues about laboratory reporting practices from 1987-2003 and the potential that information that was material and even favorable to the defense of criminal charges filed was withheld or misrepresented. The factors that contributed to these issues range from poorly crafted policy; lack of objectivity; the absence of clear report writing guidance; inattention to reporting methods that left to much discretion to the individual analyst; lack of transparency; and ineffective management and oversight of the Forensic Biology Section from 1987 to 2003."

The report strongly stated that it "did not conclude, and the reader should not assume, that each case resulted in a wrongful conviction." We can only hope that is true. Of the 15,419 lab files reviewed, 230 cases were identified as containing lab reports that mentioned positive presumptive tests results but omitted the results of more sensitive tests.

In 40 of the cases, no suspect was ever charged. In another 20, the charges were dismissed or the defendants received a not guilty verdict. In those remaining, 249 individuals were convicted of crimes. Eighty are still serving sentences -- including four now sitting on death row. Additionally, five inmates died in prison and three were executed by the state. District Attorneys in the appropriate jurisdictions now have an itemized listing of the cases in question and a charge to investigate the circumstances in each conviction. 

The cases were divided into four categories. In the fourth and most serious group, confirmatory tests were over-reported or not reflective of the results contained in the lab notes. Only five of the cases landed in this category and all of them were handled by Special Agent Duane Deaver (right). 

It seems that Deaver is being painted as the chief villain in this mess. He has been relieved of his duties while an investigation looks into his actions. But did he really perform any differently than others? Or was Deaver simply following the procedures and policies as required to maintain his job?

As for the present and the future, the report pointed out that the review "focused mostly on historical practices and policies that are no longer in use..." and that as of March 2010, complete SBI laboratory files are now routinely provided via online access to every District Attorney's office in the state..." enabling them "...to provide appropriate and timely discovery materials to the defense in a criminal proceeding." 

So was Deaver merely following bad guidance? My experience with him tends to make me lean in that direction. I watched Deaver testify in the Michael Peterson case in 2003 for a book (Written in Blood, February 2004). I saw him face a cross examination that felt more like a witch hunt than a quest for justice. I interviewed him at length. He seemed genuinely committed to justice.

I know that Peterson's family is now demanding a new trial based on this report even though that case was not one of the ones found faulty in the independent review. Peterson, who claimed his wife fell down the stairs, was convicted of killing her with a blow to the head. The most pivotal testimony presented by Deaver--that the point of impact was a point in mid-air--was confirmed by the defense witness, Dr. Henry Lee. Other evidence, like forensic pathologist Deborah Radisch's testimony about red neurons, was far more compelling. 

Nonetheless, I imagine an appeal will be filed in the Michael Peterson case. And I suspect many other defense attorneys will pile on to that bandwagon in an attempt to discredit every piece of forensic evidence that ever came within walking distance of Deaver. 

Although I applaud all the efforts to dig into the 230 cases in question and find the truth, and although I suspect those investigations will lead to additional wrong and/or dubious convictions, I am not ready to demonize Special Agent Duane Deaver. It seems the system created these circumstances, and the blame cannot be laid at the feet of one individual -- it belongs to the bureau that created the system. Deaver looks more like a scapegoat than the devil to me.

Tweet

Twice, No, Three Times Dead?

by Andrea Campbell

When is a nightmare real? When you die two or more times.

Earlier this year, a Caucasian woman named Pamela Harper was found lying face down and unconscious in an alley behind her brother-in-law’s house at 1322 Hunters Cove Drive in Little Rock. Despite the March night chill, she was wearing a thin gown, light underwear and socks. Her right hand clutched a pair of gray sweat pants. It was 6:30 a.m.

MEMS Arrives
According to Detective M. Nelson’s police report, the patrol officers who arrived on scene said that a Metropolitan Emergency Medical Services (MEMS) was called, and vehicle Unit #503 arrived. Two paramedics named Pat Bajorak and Keith Summerman were the first responders, arriving within twenty minutes at approximately 6:40 a.m. The medics did their work and reported that the victim was deceased. The medics remained on the premises for about an hour altogether according to police officer Ronnie Carr. Carr then notified Sgt. Helton. A couple of other detectives, Sgt. O. Jenkins and Detective Haskins, came out to the scene as well.

Interviews
Officers interviewed Jim Ducket, 71, the subject’s brother-in-law who lived at the address. Ducket said that Pamela Harper had called him a little after 1 o’clock in the morning. Ducket added that he thought she had sounded drunk, and that she said she had to get out of the house. Ducket claims he told Harper that she needed to not leave the house but that she should try to go to sleep. She said, “OK,” and ended the call. The next person police spoke to was the deceased’s husband, Tanny Harper, aged 60, who admitted that he and his wife had been drinking the night before and he thought his wife may have taken some pain pills. But Mr. Harper stated that he didn’t know if she’d left the house, and he reported last seeing her around midnight.

On Scene
Detective Nelson reports that he was urgently summoned from another crime scene to join the others at the Harper scene. Nelson reported that Lt. King said there was more going on with the dead body. Nelson arrived around 8:50 a.m.; Detective Haskins filled him in: the first MEMS unit had put a sheet over Ms. Harper before they left. Officers then went back to the body and when they pulled back the sheet, they noticed Ms. Harper had “goose bumps” on her shoulders and back! They observed that her stomach was moving up and down and that air was being exhaled from her mouth. He wrote in his report that they witnessed her taking about ten breaths over a two-minute period. Apparently, the first MEMS ambulance crew had pronounced her dead mistakenly, misdiagnosed rigor mortis. They immediately sought to cover her up and called the MEMS service again.

Second Ambulance Visit
This time MEMS Unit #408 was dispatched to 1322 Hunters Cove Drive at about 9:10 a.m. In the meantime, officers had spoken to the Pulaski County deputy coroner and described what they saw. The second ambulance crew arrived, immediately started CPR and Paramedic Brandi Johnson hooked Ms. Harper up to a heart monitor. Johnson determined that she couldn’t detect any heart rhythm, decided Harper was dead, and over the phone asked a doctor—Dr. Kennedy at Baptist Emergency—to "declare Harper officially dead.” Johnson was heard saying the victim showed signs of lividity and was cold. Harper's death was now logged in at 9:29 a.m., about three hours since she was first discovered. Before she left, Paramedic Johnson took the time to explain to the detective that what she believed he had observed was air leaving Ms. Harper’s lungs after death. The MEMS unit left the scene once again.

Notification
Officer Nelson notified his superior and called Deputy Coroner Patrick McElroy to tell him what had transpired and ask him to respond to the scene. Around 10 that morning, McElroy showed up with Pulaski County Coroner Garland Camper and another deputy coroner, Gerone Hobbs. Soon all of them observed Ms. Harper breathe again. She was covered in a blanket and MEMS Unit #133 arrived at 10:27 a.m.; and this time they were advised to take the victim to Baptist Hospital right away. They left around 10:53 a.m., according to the police report.

So let’s get this straight: about three and a half hours after she was first found in the 40-degree March temperature, she was pronounced dead several times and left to chill (literally).

Unfortunately, Ms. Harper died two days later at Little Rock’s Baptist Health Medical Center.

The Official Medical Ruling
Autopsy results determined the death was a suicide as the result of an intentional overdose of the narcotic painkiller Darvocet and alcohol. Hypothermia was a contributing factor in her demise.

The Aftermath
MEMS administrators accepted responsibility for the mistake, but Executive Director Jon Swanson, along with Medical Director Chuck Mason, said that once the two separate crews believed that 52-year-old Pamela Harper was dead, they followed the correct protocols and made decisions accordingly. They also felt that the coroner had portrayed the incident unfairly by criticizing the agency and its employees. Coroner Camper put in his report that paramedics should have followed a hypothermia protocol. Swanson disagreed, saying that paramedics should have done “Pulseless Electrical Activity” had they known Harper was alive. “I don’t know where he got his medical training,” said Mason, a physician and specialist in emergency medicine, said of Camper. “But it wasn’t medical school.”

Some other critical comments were bounced back and forth such as: the questionable age of the medic, a reluctance to share information, how likely the victim was to die, and, apparently, animosity was fully lobbied in both directions. The end result is that MEMS issued an apology for the mistakes and the Harper family did not reply to reporters' requests for comments.

“This is nothing to be proud of,” Swanson said. “We have done a thorough, honest and self-criticizing assessment of our performance. The responsibility is ours for the mistakes we made.”

Coroner Camper said he was confident in his report’s accuracy. “It is what it is,” the coroner said. “It’s as right as I could get it. I gave them the benefit of everything we address in the report.”

In Hindsight

MEMS is revising its training and protocols, in particular, Protocol 803 “Withholding/Withdrawal of Life Support.” The new policy adds four criteria for determining whether a person is “obviously dead”: No breathing through an open airway for 30 seconds, no pulse for 30 seconds, no heart sounds for 60 seconds and fixed and dilated pupils with “no neurological response to painful stimuli,” such as a pinch of the skin.

Other Cautions

There is also this: “Caution: Signs of death may be misleading.” Examples given in the manual are that a burn victim may appear dead and that poor hygiene can simulate decomposition.

And that pesky hypothermia? It “may simulate death, and resuscitation should be attempted if time of exposure to cold environment or water has been less than one hour or is unknown.”

According to news reports, Swanson said MEMS gets more than 6,000 calls a month and transports 4,000 people to hospitals. “Maybe only 1 or 2 or 3 percent of our calls are truly to render lifesaving service, to perform in life-threatening situations,” Swanson said. “We know we don’t get a second chance.”

Told that it would seem that ambulance crews got a second and then a third chance in Harper’s case, Swanson sighed deeply and thought about what to say next. "We acknowledge the duty that we have to do the best we can with each patient every time," he said after a pause. "This is an outcome that we regret. Which is why it is so important for us to learn what we can from it, to use it to better offer treatment and care to the people we will serve in the future.”

Source: MEMS criticizes coroner’s report on death Responders Erred in Overdose Case but Findings Unfair to Then, Officials Say by Jacob Quinn Sanders Arkansas Democrat Gazette, June 23, 2010.

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

Is Forensic Science Flawed: Experts or Faulty Testimony, What’s the Truth?

by Andrea Campbell

The National Academy of Sciences issued a major study on forensic science, “Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward.” This congressionally mandated study, which began in 2007, caused discussion, denials, ruffled feathers and controversy that has yet to be quelled. An article by Solomon Moore for the New York Times said, “ The report says such analyses are often handled by poorly-trained technicians who then exaggerate the accuracy of their methods in court.

“People who have seen it say it is a sweeping critique of many forensic methods that the police and prosecutors rely on, including fingerprint, firearms identification and analysis of bite marks, blood spatter, hair and handwriting.”

The full congressionally mandated report, a 254-page document details a lot of territory, offering observations and recommendations about forensic science methodology and the way the industry conducts its business. It advocates a “massive overhaul” of the science tools behind criminal convictions.

Some of the report talks about the “badly fragmented” state of the forensic science community and highlights these points:

That fingerprint science cannot guarantee that two analysts will obtain the same results.

Matching methods for shoeprint and tire impressions lack statistical backing, making it “impossible to assess.”

In the absence of DNA, hair analyses show “no scientific support for the use of hair comparisons for individualization.”

That reviews of bullet match basics in regards to tool mark and firearms analysis show a scientific knowledge that is fairly limited.

Bite-mark matches display “no scientific studies to support assessment, and no large population studies have been conducted.”

According to Katherine Ramsland, writing for The New York Post, ‘Technically, forensic science is the application of scientific perspectives and methods to the investigative and legal process. However, it’s become an umbrella term that encompasses disciplines of skill rather than real science. More alarming are a serious backlog of work and a lack of resources to address the needs. If forensic science loses credibility, the situation will only get worse.” And there is the rub, defense attorneys will use it to challenge all sorts of situations and if you think there is a backlog in science, an examination of the courts may prove staggering at best.

A 2005 Justice Department survey reported there are 389 publicly funded crime labs nationwide handling approximately 2.7 million often-backlogged cases a year. The TV fallacy that cases are solved quickly and with next to no error are a slap in the viewing public’s face. The average armchair detective today is watching entertainment and real-life forensics never resembled ‘CSI” except perhaps in storylines that were ripped from the headlines.

So what does this mean for criminal justice? Is there a remedy and will the Justice Department, according to spokesman Matthew Miller, “…look forward to working with the law enforcement community and members of Congress to evaluate this report and consider how best to address its findings and recommendations.” Ah, more for the federal government to oversee—a pipe dream of hope, perhaps?

One suggestion has been to remove all public forensic laboratories and facilities from the administrative control of law enforcement agencies or prosecutors’ offices. Frankly to move their venue would not only cost an enormous amount, both financially and in loss of work productivity, but what good could come of a transition such as this? I don’t believe a change in venue is going to go a long way toward making personnel free of undue internal influence or bias. Science is and should be, based on testing, no matter where it’s performed.

I do think one criteria that would help to staunch the bleeding is to have standardization. A set of uniform guidelines and criteria where every lab performs every procedure in the same way. That, and one suggestion made by the NAS that makes complete sense: the National Institute of Forensic Science should be empowered to uphold not only “best practice standards,” but that they set up mandatory certification and accreditation programs. So that crime labs can be independent of police departments and under the watchful eye of peer-reviewed research. So, as science editor, Kelly Pyrek, author of Forensic Science Under Siege, believes that forensic science will probably welcome NAS directives—but the question remains, will there be a commitment from lawmakers?

Next time we will look at the specific issues with the certain forensic science disciplines that were under question in the report.

Tweet