Category Archives: Characters
Evidence of Bad Parenting
There are few scenes more emotionally charged than that of child abuse or death. Children are helpless and easy to victimize. As a result, we get pretty upset if they are injured or killed by the very people responsible for their care. Children may also be poor witnesses, unable to adequately explain how they were injured because of their age or fear of the suspect(s). Sometimes, no one is at fault for a child’s injury (bruise) or death (SIDS) but CSIs must investigate the scene to make sure there is no foul play or neglect that may have contributed to the child’s injuries or death. So what do CSIs look for at a crime scene in cases of child abuse and neglect?
Neglect or abuse can be an isolated incident but oftentimes children suffer poor living conditions over a long period of time. I’ve been in hundreds of homes and it’s pretty easy to see which parents take care of their children. Good parents will often go without modern luxuries to ensure their children have the best life possible. Bad parents on the other hand, often put their own priorities and needs ahead of their children. It’s pretty easy to spot too. That’s not to say that appearances are everything. Even a parent who provides a “good home” can commit an isolated act of abuse or infanticide, but the conditions of the crime scene are an important factor to assess.
Children are completely dependent on adults for their care. This includes personal hygiene, health/diet, clothing, education, and general welfare. All of these things cost money. Children may require cribs, clothing, diapers, formula, baby food, car seats, and various medicines in addition to luxuries like toys, books, movies, or games. A good parent will have all of these things in quantities and in good working order. I’ve seen plenty of “poor” parents keep a neat and tidy room for their children, stocked with diapers, clean clothing, and toys.
This is how good loving parents keep a baby room
Loving parents take hygiene seriously (and make it fun too)
In contrast, a neglectful parent may provide very little for their children. I remember one case of child abuse I investigated several years ago. I found a large (body sized) depression in the hallway wall. It was obvious he was forcibly thrown into it. When the father returned home he was all attitude. I documented the fact that the refrigerator was basically empty of food as were the cupboards. No milk, no peanut butter, you get the point. The house was also very messy but that doesn’t necessarily speak of neglect (kids can get messy). There were some things that really stood out to me relating to their income. The family lived in government housing which was heavily subsidized but they still had money for a very large flat screen television, expensive stereo system, smart phone, and other luxuries. Dad was wearing a chest full of gold jewelry and had $1500.00 worth of rims on his car. All of this “wealth” at the expense of his child’s welfare. Now poor living conditions are not corollary of abuse but they are supportive.
Bad parents prioritize food lower than other luxuries
So when you are developing a story involving child abuse, abduction, or any other child crime where a parent or babysitter is suspect, you should consider how you describe the conditions of the child’s home.
Interview With New York Time’s Best-Selling Author C.J. Box
- Author C.J. Box
Today I have a very special treat for you. I have been a big C.J. Box fan since I was first introduced to his books a few years ago. He is a New York Times Best Selling author of 13 novels. He won the Edgar Alan Poe Award for Best Novel (BLUE HEAVEN, 2009) as well as the Anthony Award, Prix Calibre 38 (France), the Macavity Award, the Gumshoe Award, the Barry Award, and the 2010 Mountains & Plains Independent Booksellers Association Award for fiction. His short stories have been featured in America’s Best Mystery Stories of 2006 and limited-edition printings. 2008 novel BLOOD TRAIL was nominated for the International IMPAC Dublin (Ireland) Literary Award. His novels have been translated into 25 languages. BLUE HEAVEN and NOWHERE TO RUN have been optioned for film. His characters are very rich and three-dimensional and I find myself recognizing certain character traits in them. The author (Box) is a phenomenal storyteller and he does a great job researching his scenes. C.J. was kind enough to take a moment to answer some questions about his process and his next book FORCE OF NATURE.
F4F: Joe Picket, and Cody Hoyt for that matter, are not your average investigators. Both characters are very multidimensional. Can you discuss the genesis of these characters and how they came to be?
CJ Box: Although I never really planned on doing a series when Joe Pickett was introduced in OPEN SEASON, I’m glad I chose him because his character has held up over the years and twelve novels. My thought with Joe was to create a normal man in extraordinary circumstances. He’s a state employee, doesn’t make much money, dotes on his wife and daughters, and he makes mistakes. I wanted the reader to be able to identify with someone who wasn’t the toughest, or the smartest, or the best shot. I wanted him to be real. Cody Hoyt is more of a traditional character in many ways and somewhat familiar with readers of this genre. He’s got baggage — lots of it — and he’s prone to misbehave. He’s a fun character to write because he’s capable of anything.
F4F: Readers of this BLOG know that I have praised your attention to detail. Whether describing the knots on Joe’s pack animals, or the selection of Nate’s handgun of choice your research is top notch. Do you do a lot of “hands-on” research?
CJ Box: I do as much as necessary. It’s important for me to be comfortable with a scene or circumstance before writing about it, and I hate to find out later I got something wrong. So if I’m going to write about a character carrying the largest handgun in the world, I made sure I found it and fired it. In COLD WIND the theme was wind energy, and I was able to get permission to climb to the top of a wind turbine in order to describe it. I went on a multi-day wilderness pack trip in Yellowstone for background for BACK OF BEYOND. Obviously, there are some adventures I can’t — or won’t — experience first hand. But I do my best because I think readers can intuit incorrect details even if they aren’t experts in the particular subject.
F4F: A majority of crime writers choose mostly urban settings for their crimes but your stories tend to be set in rural, even rugged, landscapes. Have you experienced any pros or cons in choosing these types of locations?
CJ Box: In some ways, rural settings enhance the suspense and tension rather than detract from it. For example, it’s much easier to get lost in a crowd than it is to get lost in a town of 2,000 people. My settings are important and add elements to each novel, whether extreme weather, or isolation, or wildlife. For example, Joe Pickett rarely has backup in bad situations because he’s in locations that are hard to get to. This adds an element of desperation that wouldn’t exist in an urban location with cell phones and lots of other law enforcement personnel.
F4F: You had an interesting experience while doing research for Back of Beyond in which you were allowed to “tag along” on an actual case. What was the most interesting thing you took away from that experience?
CJ Box: I flew to Helena, Montana to ride along with sheriff’s department investigators because that’s what my protagonist Cody Hoyt does. I was told by my helpful hosts not to expect any excitement because, after all, it was Helena. On the day I arrived, a 16-year-old lured three boys to a local park and shot them all, killing two of them. The shooter fled on his bike and we spent the entire night combing the mountains near Helena trying to find him. I was there the next morning when the SWAT team apprehended him at his mother’s house. It was like a year of hanging around with cops compressed into 24 wild hours.
F4F: What has been the most challenging obstacle in your writing and how do you overcome it?
CJ Box: Getting published in the first place. The rest, honestly, has been a wonderful ride. But it took twenty years of self-taught writing to finally come up with a manuscript (OPEN SEASON) that attracted the attention of a major publisher, Penguin/Putnam. And even after the manuscript was done it took four more years to get it published.
F4F: You’ve had a very diverse work history prior to becoming a best selling author. Has that experience helped you in your writing?
CJ Box: Strangely, everything I’ve ever done has provided framework and experience for my novels although that wasn’t my intention. I worked on ranches in my youth and hired on with an exploration survey company which got me outside and made me learn hard work. I guided fishermen. As a reporter in a small town in Wyoming, I was able to get familiar with every strata of the community and meet people I’d never meet otherwise. As a state employee in charge of tourism development, I traveled to every corner of Wyoming. Later, as a business owner, my company represented five mountain states in Europe for tourism promotion and learned how others view us and our landscape and culture. All of those experiences formed the foundation of my novels.
F4F: Your next novel, Force of Nature, appears to focus more on the past life of Nate Romanowski. Can you give us a hint about the plot?
Eyewitness Identification: Recognition vs Resemblance
Eye witness testimony is one of the most controversial forms of evidence encountered in the courts. The reason is that human memory is influenced by a number of factors including
- Environmental Conditions (lighting, weather, sound, etc)
- Duration of observation
- Environmental Stressors (being shot at, car accident, being chased, etc)
- Physical or mental impairments which can be temporary (drunk/high) or permanent (glaucoma)
- Harboring any cultural, racial, or other relevent bias.
- Harboring any motive to lie about the identification.
But these conditions seldom come into play when the witness recognizes the person, place, or thing. Recognition is the identification of something that the observer is very familiar with. The easiest example is the recognition of a spouse. If a woman says “my husband hit me” the police are not likely going to challenge her identification. It’s very doubtful that she could mistake a stranger for her husband (unless some of the above conditions exist). The reason is that she would be intimately familiar with her husband’s appearance. Similarly, we recognize our vehicles. It’s how we are able to pick them out in a parking lot among other similar vehicles. We take note of many little differences that make our vehicles different from other similar models like damage, bumper stickers, add-ons, etc.
That’s not to say people can mistakenly approach the wrong vehicle or come up behind a man and touch his arm only to discover he is not your husband. These things happen before recognition. Recognition is the final stage of identification, not the beginning. When police rely on an eye-witness identification they should be asking “how” do you recognize the person, place, or thing? This is where the rubber meets the road. Police try to determine if the individual is capable of recognizing the item. For example, if a man says he saw a 1963 Chevrolet Corvette speeding away from the crime scene we would ask “how do you know it was a 1963?”. If the man is a mechanic or Corvette aficionado and can explain that he recognized the rear split window available only on the 1963 model he becomes more believable. Witnesses may even recognize specific aspects of the item which, when taken with other accounts, might strengthen the overall association (partial identification). For example, one witness may recognize the vehicle and color. Another witness may not be able to tell you what kind of vehicle (or even the color) but recognizes a particular bumper sticker that they themselves have on their car.
The real problem with eyewitness “identifications” is when they fall short of recognition. This is sometimes referred to as resemblance. Certain words or phrases usually tip off investigators that the witness is relying on resemblance more than recognition. Resemblance occurs when the mind tries to find an “approximate” description based on subjective criteria or perceptions. This is the least reliable type of identification. Statements containing words such as “like”, “sort of”, “maybe”, “could have” all point towards a resemblance identification.
- “It kind of looked like a Chevy Blazer or Ford Bronco”
- “He was old, like maybe 40″
- “It could have been blue…or maybe red”
These statements can’t be ignored but you shouldn’t base a case upon them. There is simply too much indecision. When you have multiple witnesses offering this type of “identification” then things can really get confusing. Witnesses can give widely contradictory statements leaving investigators scratching their heads. That is where the additional questioning comes in to see if the witness recognizes the person, place, or thing and how they recognize it.
As authors you should consider how your characters might perceive certain data to make identifications. If your witness is going to be reliable they should have some experience or background that has educated them to make that identification. Your detectives also need to question any identification to determine the reliability of the statement, unless of course you want to present an incomplete or sloppy investigation. Your detective may be inexperienced or too gun-ho to make an arrest and rely too heavily on an eyewitness. In the end your DA character is the one who ultimately makes the decision as to the weight of the witnesses account. Eyewitness “identifications” that prove unreliable can be effective tools to quickly change the storyline and keep your reader engaged.
Like this:
Interview With A Medicolegal Death Investigator: Sarah Saile
Sarah Saile; Medical Investigator, Arapahoe County (Colorado) Coroner's Office
Today I have a special treat for you. I’m interviewing Sarah Saile with the Arapahoe County Coroner’s Office in Colorado (USA). I have know Sarah for many years and had the pleasure to work quite a few death scenes with her. Sarah is a registered Medicolegal death investigator & Diplomat with the American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators, a Charter member of the Society of Medicolegal Death investigators (SOMDI) and member of several professional organizations. Sarah has a Bachelor’s Degree in Biological Anthropology and began her career as a pathology assistant. I hope her experience will provide you with some small insight into her occupation for your character development.
F4F: Tell the readers a little about your duties. How is your job different than that of a police detective?
SS: There are many duties of the Medicolegal Death Investigator and they are varied. Most are related to determining the cause and manner of death of anyone who dies in the county. When I am on call all deaths in my jurisdiction are reported to me and I need to know how to handle each case. Some cases can be as simple as taking a basic report and letting the decedent’s physician sign the death certificate or it can be more complex requiring a scene investigation. I need to document all of the details surrounding each case. Some of these duties include making a death pronouncement (if it wasn’t done by a physician), taking photographs of the body and scene, conducting an examination of the body, collecting and preserving evidence, taking the body into custody, fingerprinting the body, obtaining height and weight of the deceased, taking X-rays when necessary, making a positive identification of the individual, taking an inventory of medications and personal property that were collected, obtaining medical records and speaking with physicians, identifying and notifying the legal next of kin, working with mortuaries, and sometimes testifying in court. At the end of the day all of the information I gathered is written up in a report for the Forensic Pathologist to review. Then they will decide if the case warrants an autopsy or an external examination.
A police detective’s job is to determine whether or not a crime has been committed. The goal of our office is to determine the cause of death and the manner of death. It is important to understand that the Coroner’s Office does not work for law enforcement or any other agency. We are a separate entity. This can be crucial especially when we are dealing with deaths in custody or police involved deaths. According to Colorado State Statute 30-10-601 once death pronouncement has been made no one can disturb the body or any article on or surrounding the body except the Coroner or with the Coroner’s authorization. When I arrive I will work with police on collecting these items and then I will conduct a body exam. I will inform police of my findings and conversely they will give me any information they have as well. It is crucial that I maintain a good working relationship with all outside agencies. In order to be effective we need to know what each others duties and responsibilities are. Future litigation could depend on it. Good communication will help everyone in the long run.
F4F: A lot of readers want to know about the process of “next of kin” notification. How does that process work? Is there a hierarchy to the notification? How many family members do you have to notify?
SS: First it is important to understand that there is a hierarchy in determining who the legal next of kin is. In the state of Colorado, State Statute 15-19-106 defines the hierarchy as follows: 1. An individual(s) that the decedent has appointed through a declaration instrument (i.e., Will and Testament); 2. Spouse (legal or common law); 3. Adult children; 4. Parents or legal guardians; 5. Adult siblings; 6. Public Administrator. In cases where there are multiple people who would classify as legal next of kin the majority are given the authorization to handle arrangements. It is also very important to keep in mind that common law marriage in the state of Colorado has no minimum time requirements of cohabitation of the couple. If they perceive their relationship as a marriage then it will be upheld as such. If this status is challenged then proof of their common law status must be provided. This can include holding property as joint tenants, joint checking accounts, listing each other as spouses on insurance forms, etc. One caveat to common law marriage is that it does not include same sex partnerships. The state of Colorado does not recognize same sex marriages so a same sex common law marriage has no legal standing. Another important factor to consider is if the legal next of kin is arrested on suspicion of or if they are convicted of involvement in the death they cannot make arrangements for the decedent. The next person in the hierarchy would be given authorization.
When a death has occurred it is the Medical Investigators job to determine who the legal next of kin is. Sometimes it is very clear cut and the family will be on scene. Other times it can be extremely challenging. There are individuals who have lost all contact with their relatives. Their close friends may not even know that they have any family. In these scenarios the investigator needs to be diligent and look for clues on scene. Address books, phone records, mail, emergency contacts in medical records, etc. can all be very useful tools. We also have access to various websites that will allow us to enter minimal information on an individual to access marriage records, voter registration records, previous address where the subject lived, possible relatives, criminal records and other pertinent information. Then the process of elimination begins.
In general we prefer to make death notifications in person. We will often be accompanied by law enforcement and a Victim’s Advocate. When the notification needs to be made outside of our jurisdiction or if we are backlogged with caseload, we refer to law enforcement and Victim’s Advocates to do this for us. We will supply them with the basic information and then have the family get in touch with us for the details. There are instances where notification by phone does happen. An investigator may only have a phone number for the next of kin that cannot be linked to a physical address so it is the only way we may know how to reach them.
F4F: What would you say is the most challenging aspect of your job?
SS: I think the most challenging aspect of the job is investigating child deaths. No matter what the circumstances are they are never easy. The level of emotion and stress is often palpable. When the death is violent it will linger with you if you let it. You have to stay very focused and not let emotions dictate how you handle the case. It can be very easy to get distracted by the family’s grief. You have a very important job to do and if you don’t stay on track you could miss very important details. When I work with these families it is important for me to be able to communicate what coroner procedures are and to address their questions and concerns. I need to be the grounded part of the unfolding events. I don’t think families would benefit from me crying and getting overly emotional in fact, I think it could be detrimental. I do care I just “turn it off” when I am on the clock.
F4F: What is the most rewarding aspect of your work?
SS: There are a lot of rewarding aspects but if I were to pick one it would be when my investigation reveals something about the death or the circumstances leading up to it that could have been missed. I had a case where the family of a deceased man was suing a hospital because they released him from the Emergency Department with what the family claimed were obvious cardiac symptoms. The hospital denied that he complained of those symptoms. My interview with the family contradicted the hospital claims but it was still not enough evidence to win the case. When our office met with lawyers to discuss our findings one photograph that I took proved without a doubt that the hospital had treated the decedent for cardiac symptoms. The family won the case. When I had taken the picture I had no idea how important it would be.
F4F: There are a lot of fictional characters in your line of work. Do you have any favorites? What about them do you like?
SS: I guess I am one of the very few who don’t get into the fictional characters that are based in this line of work. I have tried to watch a few of the shows and read some of the books but I have never gotten past one or two episodes or books before I feel annoyed. The only show I liked that dealt with death was HBO’s “Six Feet Under” and that was about funeral directors. Do you suppose I would hate it if I was in their line of work? I prefer true crime books and television shows.
F4F: Do you have any “pet-peeves” or see recurring errors regarding your line of work in fiction or on television? If so, what are they?
SS: Where to begin?! I think that the glamorous death investigator who oversteps his/her bounds on a regular basis is so irritating. It can be very unrealistic and nothing like what I do. Have they ever done an episode where the investigator ruins a pair of shoes on scene or spends the rest of the day smelling so bad of decomposition that their co-workers comment? Not only that, but the “CSI effect” can be an obstacle when I am working. The biggest discrepancy is the estimation of time of death. I have had people ask me what time did their loved one die and expect an exact time down to the minute! I simply collect information about when they were last known alive, collect evidence that they could have been alive after that, and compare that to the physical findings of the body (rigor mortis, livor mortis, algor mortis). There are so many factors that can effect those estimations such as ambient temperature, clothing, internal body temperature, body mass, etc. It is not an exact science. The other big one would be the state of the art technology that the investigators use. The budgets for their offices must be incredible. I am just glad we recently upgraded to higher quality digital cameras!
F4F: Are there certain traits that a good death investigator possesses? What are they?
SS: There are a lot of different types of people in this field and they all have something different to contribute to a death investigation. I think one’s abilities are more important than a particular trait or characteristic. An individual’s ability to communicate clearly with outside agencies and families is crucial. Miscommunication can hinder an investigation and cause added stress to a family who is grieving. You also have to be able to document your findings in a well written report. The Forensic Pathologist is rarely going to respond to a death scene so you have to be their eyes and ears. It can help put the pieces of the puzzle together. These skills combined with medical knowledge can be the best tools of the trade.
- Sarah ascending a rock face at Vedauvoo, Wyoming (USA)
F4F: You see a lot of terrible things in your work. What do you do to relieve the stress?
SS: For me the best stress relief is exercise. My first love is running but I also love biking, rock climbing, and swimming. Every year two of my girlfriends and I plan a “girl’s only” trip. This year’s trip we will be competing in the San Juan 70.3 Ironman race (we will be racing the relay). Both of these women have worked or currently work in the same field so they have been pivotal in my stress reduction! When I say I had a bay day at work they know what I am talking about. Besides, my husband is squeamish!
Forensics Takes the Stage: The Press Conference
The Press and the police have a very interesting relationship, at least in the United States. The press wants to find out as much as possible about the cases we work and law enforcement wants to maintain the integrity of the investigation. It’s a balancing act. Some believe that the public has a right to know every detail of of a case, especially a high profile murder investigation. Most of us holding the responsibility of these cases know that some information is better left unsaid until trial. But occasionally, there are those who knowingly or unknowingly leak information for their own benefit. Some cops date reporters and that has the potential to spell disaster for an investigation. Other times there may be an idealistic or vindictive employee wanting to “make things right”. Whatever the motive the consequences can be the same; criminals put on alert.
Frankly, I’ve never understood why the public needs to reminded about the boogeyman. Every time there is a serial rapist or murderer on the loose the media acts as if it is a passing tornado. It sells newspapers but it’s a distortion of the truth. The fact of the matter is that bad people are always around us and, given the opportunity, will harm you. Just because the media isn’t highlighting a serial rapist doesn’t mean its safe to leave your bedroom window wide open. Those issues aside, press conferences can hamper an investigation without making the public any safer.
Police agencies are understandably under a lot of pressure to catch a bad guy, especially when their crimes are the subject of multiple news stories. Police chiefs want to sound as if they have everything under control and that they have viable leads to follow. They want to ensure the public that everything is being done and that the suspect will soon be in cuffs. In doing so however, they sometimes reveal information we’d rather keep quiet about.
There are certain things a criminal simply can’t change about themselves, like DNA or fingerprints. So CSIs don’t mind so much when an overzealous chief reveals we have found fingerprints or blood at the scene. However, a suspect can easily discard distinctive clothing or footwear which may be the very things we’re counting on the public to see (so they can call us). Believe it or not, criminals are not always the brightest bulb in the pack. It may not occur to them to get rid of their favorite jacket or sneakers. So why do we help them out?
Another major concern is that centralized information will be released. By that I mean information that is known only to the suspect and the police. High profile cases usually result in a tip line and thousands of “helpful” callers. Other criminals may also contact the police with “critical information” they are willing to trade for better living conditions or an early release. These can create hundreds of false leads detectives have to follow up on. But if certain information is kept from the public then detectives are better able to sort out the valid claims from the bogus ones.
If you really want to add some tension between characters have one of them spill the beans about something only the criminal would know. Detectives may then be in a scramble to find the suspect before they dispose of the evidence. You have a lot of latitude about how that critical information is released too. It may be through a relationship, bribe, or misguided justice. It might even be released by accident (such as a conversation overheard in public).
Like this:
How To Conduct a Bloodhound Line-up
It’s always fascinating to me when I run into detectives who don’t know, or have never conducted, a bloodhound line up. So, I figured if they weren’t aware of them you might not be either. As a breed, there is no better tracking dog than the Bloodhound in my opinion. They have been bred for centuries and valued by Kings and cops alike for their tracking prowess. I have written before about how they can track under challenging conditions. Bloodhounds are said to be able to detect scent in parts per million which means they need very little scent to follow effectively. In fact, I’ve had cases where these dogs can follow people in cars! You almost have to see it to believe it. When you consider how well this breed can track it should come as no surprise that they could be used in a line-up scenario.
The theory is pretty straight forward. If a dog can track a person to a particular location (to the exclusion of other people whose scent has also transected the trail) then they should be able to pick out the source of that scent from a group of similar “looking” sources. This line-up can be done with people or vehicles to identify the scent of a suspect, victim, or decomposing scent. What scent you are searching for will dictate how you set up the search. For example, if you are looking for the scent of a little girl that was abducted in a suspect vehicle you would scent the dog (let the dog sniff something containing the girls scent like a piece of her clothing) on something from her. If you were looking for a suspect scent you’d scent the dog off of him or something containing his scent. In fact, handlers will often let the dog sniff the law enforcement investigators on scene so that the dog knows to ignore those scents while searching for evidence. So having said that, how do we conduct a line-up?
Let’s say we’re doing a line up with the suspect vehicle. While dog’s don’t know what car the suspect was driving by model (even the best bloodhound doesn’t know the difference between a 1963 Corvette and a 1968 Camaro) investigators usually try to assemble six to eight vehicles of similar style tot he suspect vehicle. With common cars we usually ask a rental agency or dealership for “filler” vehicles. We might also use personal vehicles from officers if they match. So if your suspect is driving a 2007 Nissan Pathfinder we’d try to find vehicles that would match or come very close to it (like a Toyota Fourrunner). Investigators will choose a “scent neutral” site for the line up. This might be a parking lot or impound lot which is not associated with the suspect or victim on a regular basis. For example, you wouldn’t want to do the line-up at the suspect’s home or place of work. The vehicles are parked all facing the same direction and spaced about 10 to 15 yards apart. The dog and handler are not present and the handler won’[t know which car belongs to the suspect. This is to avoid any possible claim that the handler somehow coached the dog to the correct car.
The handler will scent the dog off an article of clothing from the victim. This is done in a location which is out of site from the line-up. It might be several blocks away if in a city area or 1/4 mile away if in a very rural setting. The dog is then allowed to track towards the line-up area. As the dog approaches the vehicles he/she will inspect each vehicle one by one. Every well trained dog will have a “signal” that tells the handler the dog has found the scent. Usually this signal is obvious and not something that could be misconstrued. A dog will have only one signal. Most dogs I have worked with signal a “hit” by sitting down. Others might stop a track and return to the handler first before sitting. Investigators are told ahead of time what that signal will be so they can recognize it if the dog hits on the suspect vehicle (because the investigators know which vehicle belongs to the suspect). Even if the dog hits on the first vehicle the handler will make them inspect each one. Oftentimes investigators will videotape the line-up so it can be shown later to the jury or judge during trial.
These line-ups are really fun to watch. If you want to put one in your novel you could use one for vehicles or people. Feel free to get a little creative in what scents your characters are looking for.
Like this:
The Call Before The Call
Today I have posted an interesting article on character development at the Crime Fiction Collective. We’ve all seen those videos of police officers acting inappropriately, sometimes illegally, and there is usually more to the story than what you see in the dashcam video. If you want some suggestions on creating some additional depth to your characters take a moment and check oout this article here.
Conflict Between IT and the Crime Lab
Okay, maybe it’s not a war but we sure do seem to piss each other off quite a bit. I don’t envy the job the information technology folks have to do in law enforcement. It’s a pretty much thankless position where everyone demands 110%; 120% of the time! Most municipal governments made the decision years ago to employ their own people to manage their computer networks instead of farming it out. The logic is pretty simple. Governments have secrets and law enforcement has some of the most sensitive information within the local government. The last thing we want is to have any of that sensitive information (like photos of a young girl during a sexual assault examination) leaked unless required by law.
Information is compartmentalized even further within a law enforcement agency. The CSIs aren’t going to be able to access the confidential information in the drug task force and those folks generally won’t have any access t0 crime scene photos unless it’s one of their cases. Information is shared on a need to know basis. The one constant is the IT specialist. They have to get into everything sooner or later. The point is that different sections of the police department have different computer requirements. Our computer needs in the crime lab are different than those of the gang unit because we use these tools in different ways.
Most forensic scientists pride themselves on being intelligent. We all own home computers and we’re pretty savvy about the software we use. However, many labs aren’t allowed to manage their own systems. You can’t load your own software or even purchase it without the blessings of IT or Presidential mandate. Most of the time you’re not even allowed to de-frag your hard drive (you could unknowingly set the thing on fire, or something). We’re intelligent enough to reconstruct complex crime scenes but not smart enough to perform the simplest of functions we do at home. Ironically, the same is true of the computer forensics division whose members employ the it’s better to ask for forgiveness than for permission philosophy.
Now before you IT groupies shower me with hate mail let me say I understand the need for compatibility. Downloading foreign software onto a network can have catastrophic consequences. The problem is that IT tends to promote a one size fits all model for the entire department. In terms of “computer profiling” the crime lab is lumped together with the detectives, records management folks, and the secretaries. This poses a number of problems because we have special needs in the laboratory. It’s common to have our internet traffic blocked or fight for months to get approval to download specialized programs. In the end I think it would just be simpler to have our own stand-alone network.
Here is one funny/tragic story that may help exemplify our needs and the dangers of using the one size fits all model. I once worked with a video expert who used an AVID computer system. This is a high end computer system for processing and enhancing audio and video evidence. She is freaky good at her work and a nationally recognized expert. A day came when she had to upgrade the Windows operating system on the computer. The company sent her detailed instructions on how to do the upgrade to make the data transition run smoothly. She provided the instructions to the IT staff member assigned to the project, gave him verbal instructions, and went to lunch. When she came back she had a new operating system and a reformatted hard drive.
The problem was that this system did not have external back-up drives available so three years of case work was erased. She was a wee bit pissed as you might imagine and things got worse when she found out the IT guy didn’t follow the instruction provided by the manufacturer. His response was something along the lines of I know how to upgrade an operating system which a century ago would have earned him a showdown on main street at ten paces! He looked at our sophisticated video system as just another computer and we paid the price for it. The original evidence was still available but all the work done to enhance the videos for those cases had to be re-done on a case by case basis. It sucked.
You would think that most CSIs get burned out by the doom and gloom they see every day but a lot of us are more bothered by stuff like this. All the little rules and regulations and policies that make a difficult job pull-your-hair-out tough! If you are writing a story with a CSI you might consider issues like these as additional stressors that may influence your character relationships.
Suicide Notes: Fact & Fallacy
As many of you know I regularly contribute articles to the Crime Fiction Collective BLOG every other Tuesday. It’s a really great BLOG for mystery writers. Today I am discussing suicide notes and how you can use them as tools to create leads, false flags, and tension between characters. Suicide notes can tell you a great deal about the motivations of the person (or even the suspect if the scene has been staged) and, as writers, you can use that language to steer your readers in certain directions within the story. Check out the posting here.
Critical Incident Teams Part 2: Processing the Cops
In my last posting I discussed the make-up of critical incident teams and how they are used to investigate officer involved shootings and in-custody deaths. While some officers can, and have, violated the law in such incidents, a vast majority of shootings are legal. Part of this results from the training officers receive. This article isn’t going to get into the legal aspects of a shooting because laws are different all over the world. What I want to talk about is the response of the CSI in such incidents as they pertain to processing the officers. As you will soon see, it can be a challenging experience for both parties. These challenges can produce emotions which you can use in a novel to generate tension or direct a plot line.
When CSIs process an officer we generally perform the same collection procedures we do with suspects. It’s not that we think of them as suspects it’s just what we know. However, this is where the tension comes in because officers who are already at a high stress level tend to feel like they are being treated like a suspect. Assuming the shooting is good the officer may actually feel more like a victim (especially if the bad guy just tried to kill them), so treating them like a suspect puts them on the defensive. But part of our duty is to understand and explain the events that happened and collect evidence which can be used to support those conclusions.
One important issue to remember is that police officers have rights like any other citizen. They may be weary of complying with your every request depending on the advice they get from their attorney (although they are generally cooperative). Officers are not under any legal obligation to cooperate (although they may be terminated depending on their employment contract) with an investigation but most do. Depending on the circumstances of the incident CSIs may do any or all of the following:
- Collect uniform and associated accessories (leather, cuffs, gun, Taser, pepper spray, boots, etc)
- Swab hands and face for GSR
- Do hair combings or collect hair samples
- Take a blood or urine sample (to test for the presence of drugs or alcohol)
- Take photographs of injuries (can include full nude depending on locations and types of injuries)
During this process it may be necessary to collect personal items from an officer that they may be very reluctant to give up. These things may have nothing to do with the incident but CSIs don’t want to be accused of letting them take evidence away. Things like car keys (how are they getting home), wallets (all their money and credit cards), watches (may be an anniversary present) may be collected even though they have nothing to do with the shooting. But if we don’t collect them, or at least document them heavily, then someone may criticize the investigation later on. The argument goes something like this. “If you didn’t collect it or photograph it then how do you know it wasn’t relevent?”. I’m not saying I agree with that argument but it can come up from the lawyers involved.
So if you are writing a scene about an officer involved shootings you may want to consider some of these issues in character development and plot line. Consider having the CSI decide to not collect some piece of evidence that later becomes important in proving the officer’s innocence. For example, maybe they don’t collect the uniform but later on someone argues that there was a struggle and the officer and subject rolled around on the ground right before the shooting. A “clean” uniform may help prove that false but if it wasn’t collected or properly photographed then it may be harder to prove one way or another. The reality will all investigations is that you never know where they may end up.
