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

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

Can We Overhaul Forensic Science?

by Andrea Campbell

In my last article we talked about the report compiled by the National Academy of Sciences on behalf of Congress, that issued a sweeping critique about how forensic science methods were found lacking. As part of the diatribe the report also suggested that a federal agency should be created to guarantee independence between labs and law enforcement; and that lack of standardization, training, techniques and so forth be remedied. Hear, hear, I say, good idea.

But it’s a lot to fathom. Evidence, ever since crime has wielded its ugly head, has always been subject to criticism and the legality of evidentiary proof is generally taken up by the courts, one case at a time. There is no doubt that this industry is run on a budget that, in another field—say construction—you could say that structures have been built with Popsicle sticks and bailing wire. We get it. Forensic science grew up in its own inherent way as needed. There was no great plan. Innovative scientists crafted techniques that worked and were applied successfully over and over again with the same result. And that is largely the premise of science—to repeat a test that remains consistent with theorized results.

But if we use fingerprints in our theory, it's true: No two people look at fingerprints the same way because it is largely a subjective business relying first on the expertise of the examiner.

With fingerprints, basically the print is examined by human eye under magnification and a matching takes place. A friend of mine who worked at the state crime lab here, told me stories about the old days where prints were stored on cards and separated out by hand and put into metal filing cabinets. Granted, technology has entered into the methodology improving some of the ease of handling exemplars but, still, it remains a business of a human being making a call as to whether the prints match. Now obviously a print that matched in 12 points (12 different areas) would be better matched than one that only had 8 similar points and standardization would help in that regard. But, you know what? fingerprints don’t come in neatly, 100% on a clean card. They arrive as partials, smudges, half-prints and so on, which is more realistic.

Let’s talk about another of the sore spots in the report: bitemarks. Bitemarks are impressions evidence and they are found on a variety of substances—skin, of course, but also in duct tape, car weather-stripping, cheese, and heaven only knows what else. It’s true that a bitemark should be examined by someone who is an expert in bitemarks and that would be a forensic odontologist. He is a person who is probably a practicing dentist or dental surgeon and knows teeth in his sleep. But can you make a guess as to how many actual “forensic” odonotologists are available in the U.S.? I have no real idea personally, and do not want to be nailed to a guesstimate, but I would venture to say, it’s probably under a couple hundred who avail themselves to this type of work. Yes, there’s a lacking there. But does that mean that a lab-trained forensic scientist who specializes in impressions evidence, footprints, tire tracks, etc., would not be able to recognize a similarity between a bite mark and a human impression? I would hope they would be able to suss it out.

In 1928, a report came out from the National Academy of Sciences that basically said that the coroner system in the United States was an “anachronistic institution,” and that coroners should be given the heave and be replaced by medical examiners, men and women who have doctorates in pathology. That may be a righteous goal, but today, more than half the states have county coroners pronouncing death and giving determinations. The recommendation didn’t happen. Why? Apathy, lack of funding, no regulatory board, no consensus and hey, guess what? crime moves on and waits for no stinkin’ regulation. Now I am a fan of regulation and doing things the right way. But I have a friend who is a coroner in Hot Springs proper (I live in the Village, another community) and he was an EMT for many years. Now I’d say that my friend as an Emergency Medical Technician has seen more than his share of near-deaths, the dying, and the fully dead. Should he be able to say if something looked suspicious? I would hope so. The autopsy would be done by a medical examiner as the result of his call anyway.

This is not a subject that is going to have simple answers. Of course, we don’t want people accused of crimes they didn’t commit. But I have a ton of friends at the Arkansas State Crime Lab in all disciplines, and I do not for a minute think that they are slackers, unqualified, or that they nudge the evidence in favor of law enforcement.

But, YES, let’s fund the crime labs better. Hire more qualified people. Have standards for the various disciplines. All the components the laboratories need are years and years to put new procedures into action, more money than we care to know about, and dedicated overseers who have all the time in the world. And what do we do in the meantime? Put a hold on courtroom evidence? The defense attorneys among us are shouting “Yes!”—I know it. And would you or I in their same position disagree? probably not. They have their own duty to uphold to their client, the accused.

Feel free to weigh in here.

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