If you missed your chance to come to the week-long camp, now’s the time to make up for it! Sign up now at our camp website–that’s also where you can find details on the camp itself. Hope to see you there!

The post CSI Boot Camp! appeared first on Crime Museum.

Now a public figure, Dillinger turned to plastic surgery to alter his identity and evade Purvis and the rest of the law enforcement community. In those days, plastic surgery was not as common as it is today, and the medical procedures were primitive, dangerous, time-consuming and very painful. Dillinger underwent several bouts of plastic surgery, some more successful than others, but in the end he only managed to slightly alter his appearance. After one round of plastic surgery from which he was extremely disappointed to find that he still looked the same, one of the doctors suggested that he remove his fingerprints as a way to escape being detected. Dillinger liked this idea and elected to undergo the painful process of obliterating his fingerprints.

A wanted poster for Dillinger, complete with all ten fingerprints

Dillinger was not the first criminal to come up with that idea. In 1933, “Handsome Jack” Klutas had attempted to file down the small ridges on his fingers, but he ultimately failed. Two of Kate “Ma” Barker’s clan, Alvin “Creepy” Karpis and Ma’s son Freddy, decided to remove their fingerprints as well, so they hired mob physician Joseph P. Moran to do the job. Moran was inexperienced in this procedure and repeatedly hacked and knifed at their prints until the gangsters couldn’t bear any more pain, but when their fingers finally healed, the fingerprint ridges grew back to their original patterns.

Hoover was aware of this trend among criminals and he became wary of the possibility of success. He commissioned several surgeons and dermatologists to report on the likelihood of someone obliterating their fingerprints, and in 1934 they came back with their findings. Dr. Howard L. Updegraff, a member of that committee, had extensive experience in the area of fingerprint alterations and he reported that the only way to permanently obliterate a fingerprint is to graft skin from another part of the body over them. And in 1941, that’s exactly what Robert Phillips did when he got a doctor to graft the skin from his chest on to the tips of his fingers. Phillips, however, was caught because the ridges surrounding the graft areas, as well as on the other joints of his fingers were used to identify him.

Dillinger seemed to have taken the road less traveled when he chose acid to burn the tips of his fingers with in late May, 1934. The procedure appeared to be successful; however, faint ridge markings were still visible on his fingertips after the full healing process, as were seen after Dillinger’s death.

Many people in American history have attempted to elude the authorities by scarring or ruining their fingerprints, but forensics has been able to keep up with those criminals all the while. In fact, as Phillips found out firsthand, just ruining the tips of one’s fingers does not preclude fingerprint identification. The ridges that are found on the tips of one’s fingers are also found on the entire surface of the palm, and they are just as unique to an individual. Furthermore, by introducing scars onto one’s fingers, it makes the identification process even easier, since the scar patterns are unique and less common to the general population.

If one thing can be learned from Dillinger and the other notorious outlaws of the Gangster Era it’s that crime does not pay, and eventually criminals will be brought to justice, and not always the pretty way.

The post John Dillinger- Fingerprint Obliteration appeared first on Crime Museum.

When light is shined on a surface, the surface can either absorb, reflect, or transmit the light. In special situations, the light that is shined on an object is absorbed by that material and then re-emitted at a different wavelength (called a Stoke’s shift), which is known as fluorescence. Typically when an object fluoresces, the light is re-emitted at a lower energy state, and therefore, at a longer wavelength. In the case of blue light as the incident light, the re-emitted fluorescence usually occurs in the orange spectrum – that’s why investigators wear orange goggles! In order to see the faint fluorescence, investigators must block out all the blue light from entering their eyes since that would drown out the faint fluorescence, so orange goggles will only allow orange light to reach their eyes, and hence, the fluorescence is observed.

Many body fluids, organic materials and fibers will fluoresce under the forensic light source, and other materials such as blood, gunshot residue, and some inks will absorb blue light to appear dark under the light source. These substances are often not observable to the naked eye, and especially if the surface was wiped down or cleaned. The forensic light source is always a good starting point in a crime scene search because it is portable, quick, cheap (once the unit has been paid off), and most of all, non-destructive, meaning that it will not damage or harm any of the evidence.

The post What is a Forensic Light Source? appeared first on Crime Museum.

does occur, it draws huge attention and everyone wants to get involved in the case. Homicide investigations rely on a large amount of teamwork and draw upon many sources of information, and forensic evidence is only one component of it. Let’s take a brief look at the 5 defining characteristics of a homicide and how they are essential in helping investigators understand their crime and apprehend their criminal. These characteristics were developed and defined in the FBI’s Crime Classification Manual, Second Edition, whose goal was to standardize terminology, facilitate communication within the criminal justice field, educate the criminal justice system and public about the types of crimes being committed, and develop a database for investigative research.

1. Victimology

What makes homicides unique from property and non-violent crimes is the fact that there is a victim. The victim is very often the most important investigative tool, since a lot of information can be revealed about the case from studying the victim. If investigators can answer the question why the victim was targeted, then they are often lead to the motive and potentially their offender.  Areas of the victim’s lifestyle, habits, relationships, employment, personality, leisure activities, alcohol/drug abuse, dating habits, etc. are excellent sources of information about what increased the victim’s risk.

2. Crime Scene Indicators

The location, environment, and time of day may present significant clues as to the nature of the perpetrator and the amount of risk he is willing to take and shed light on the motive of the criminal. It is also possible for there to be several crime scenes as well, such as if the victim was transported at some point during the crime, and that may tell investigators how organized the criminal is. The disposition of the body at the crime scene, if it was concealed, displayed, or positioned may also tell investigators a lot about the criminal and if there was a message sent by the murder. Furthermore, items are often left at the scene, such as a weapon, or removed from the scene, such as a souvenir, which can narrow down the type of criminal, and restraints or other tools of the crime left at the scene can potentially paint a better picture of the crime.

3. Staging

This is the purposeful alteration of the crime scene, meant to mislead investigators. Inconsistencies in the crime scene often uncover staging attempts.

4. Forensic Findings

The value of physical evidence at the crime scene is well known and can be crucial to any homicide investigation. The cause of death, types of trauma, indications of sexual assault, toxicology reports, and hair/DNA/fingerprint/etc. analysis can all lead to apprehending the criminal.

5. Investigative Considerations

These considerations are usually taken once the homicide has been classified, and may include search warrants, locating and interviewing witnesses, and documenting the crime scene.

By using these defining characteristics as a starting point, investigators are usually able to gather a lot of information that will help them in the case. They also generate profiles of criminals to help them determine motive and opportunity. Finally, the information that they gather may help investigators link different crimes based on similar MO’s or criminal signatures, and may be the key to breaking other cases.

The post Homicide Investigation- The First Steps appeared first on Crime Museum.

Play our New Trivia Game Now!

The post Crime & Forensic Trivia Tournament! appeared first on Crime Museum.

Read about how different states handle the death penalty here

The post Most Dangerous States to Live In appeared first on Crime Museum.

• Fingerprint science “does not guarantee that two analysts following it will obtain the same results”.
• Shoeprint and tire-print matching methods lack statistical backing, making it “impossible to assess”.
• Hair analyses show “no scientific support for the use of hair comparisons for individualization in the absence of (DNA).”
• Bullet match reviews show “scientific knowledge base for tool mark and firearms analysis is fairly limited.”
• Bite-mark matches display “no scientific studies to support (their) assessment, and no large population studies have been conducted.”

The art of fingerprint comparisons

There is no denying that a fingerprint examination is a subjective process. When an examiner conducts a common source determination, he or she will compare points of individuality in the two prints and evaluate if their is sufficient quantity and quality of detail in agreement between the unknown and the known prints to reach a conclusion. These assessments are largely based on the examiner’s interpretation of the evidence, and there are no specific measurements or standard tests to benchmark against, except for counting the number of points in agreement. In the U.S., the courts deliberately eliminated a threshold standard of agreement, so that the determination can remain a subjective matter, taking into account the examiner’s training and experience, and both the quantity and quality of comparable details. That is to say that an examiner does not have to observe a minimum number of points in agreement between the unknown and the known print to reach a common source conclusion, but can rely of his or her specific training and experience to guide the examiner to the right conclusion.

As you may have gathered, an element of a fingerprint comparison is dependent on the person doing the examination. An examiner needs to be able to see the fingerprint in a specific way, store that in his or her memory, and then recall it when comparing it to another fingerprint. A person’s ability to recognize shapes, small details, and other spatial relationships is crucial to the job of a fingerprint examiner, and can be considered an art form. It is a learned skill, requiring practice and concentration, and one that is ultimately susceptible to variation.

So, if fingerprint examination is an art, where is the science?

The science of fingerprint comparisons

Fingerprint examinations are deeply rooted in scientific principles. The whole fingerprint field is based on the recognition that no two people will ever have the same fingerprints, and that an individual’s fingerprints will remain unchanged throughout life. Based on these premises, the science of fingerprint comparisons is one that should, in theory, have no error. Either a fingerprint found at a crime scene is the same as the known print or it is not – there is no in-between. The examiner’s methodology is also based on the scientific method. An examiner follows the ACE-V methodology for fingerprint comparisons, which is an acronym for the stages of the examination. Analysis is the first step, where the examiner will look at the unknown print and determine if there is sufficient quantity and quality of friction ridge detail to be able to conduct an examination. Next comes the comparison, where the examiner will look for class and individual characteristics in the unknown fingerprint and compare them with the known prints. In the third stage, the examiner will evaluate the comparison, determine how much weight to attribute to the different similarities and dissimilarities between the prints, and reach a conclusion. The conclusion an examiner can reach is either exclusion (the prints came from different sources), individualization (the prints came from a common source), or no conclusion (there is insufficient amount of information to be able to reach a conclusion). The final stage is the verification stage, where a second examiner will conduct an independent examination on the same evidence and verify the first conclusion. Technically speaking, the examiners should reach the same conclusion since the science behind the examination should lead them to the same results. In this way, fingerprint comparisons should be reproducible and accurate because they are founded on scientific principles.

Understanding the argument

So, why does the report state that fingerprint science “does not guarantee that two analysts following it will obtain the same results”? Well, because essentially it does not. The emphasis on that statement is on the word “guarantee”. Whenever humans are involved in anything, there is the chance for error, even though in theory there should not be any for fingerprint science.  The tone of the statement indicates that each time an examiner conducts an examination on the same evidence there is an equal chance that they will each reach a completely different conclusion, but the science dictates that they should reach the same conclusion every time. Should that discredit fingerprint science? Some people believe that it should, especially since the error rate for fingerprint science has not been uncovered. The scientific community goes through great lengths to try to eliminate human error, by instituting random proficiency testing, continuing education, and board certifications as some of the measures to reveal the human error rate and to prevent unqualified individuals from becoming experts in the field. But as we have previously discussed, there is a human element to fingerprint science that even the courts have promoted as being crucial to allowing fingerprint examiners to do their job effectively. In fact, there are automated forms of fingerprint comparisons, such as AFIS (Automated Fingerprint Identification System), which is used to scan databases for a fingerprint match; however, the computers are not “authorized” to conduct an examination en lieu of humans, since the computers can not go to court and testify as to the reliability of their examinations. The U.S. has still mandated that a fingerprint comparison must be done by a person, since that is the most reliable way of ensuring that it is done properly. Computers can not deal with variation like humans can and they can not explain differences that are present in fingerprints from the same person. These philosophies dictate that a system that is too rigid is actually detrimental to fingerprint science, since it restricts the degree to which a person’s training and experience can contribute to a fingerprint comparison.

That leaves us with a “Catch 22”. On the one hand, humans are seceptible to error, even if measures are taken to eliminate those errors. On the other hand, computers, which do not make errors, are not qualified to do fingerprint comparisons. So, we are left with a situation that demands perfection from imperfect beings. While that does not justify the fact that errors occur, it should help us understand why they may occur and it should be a force driving us to reach perfection in our profession. I agree with the report’s call for more research in the human error rate, proficiency testing, advanced training, and stringent certification of examiners and labs, but let’s take the argument into context and understand how it can effectively be applied.

The post Forensics- Art or Science? appeared first on Crime Museum.

Breanna Woodside – Cops say Breanna’s father, Miles Woodside, failed to return her to her mother as required in a custody order. Police say Miles Woodside should be considered armed and dangerous.

Haleigh Cummings – Cops say Haleigh was last seen in the area of Hermit’s Cove in Satsuma, FL wearing a pink shirt and underwear.
 

 If you have any information, or to report a tip, please click here to go to America’s Most Wanted website.

The post Amber Alerts appeared first on Crime Museum.