The Criminal Choice Behind Burglary

by Tom Adair author of the 2012 Crime Thriller The Scent of Fear.

As a former CSI I tried to understand how the criminal thinks. It's impossible to consider every single motivation but there are some generalities that may aid investigators in uncovering certain clues. As an author I find this insight very valuable because weaving this mindset into your storyline gives a sense of realism I think readers respond to. Everyone wants to understand motive. It's how we begin to make sense of things and challenge our world view. As a reader I want to understand the motivations of the killer, victim, cops, and others too. It helps me understand why they do what they do.

I've talked to a lot of victims that ask me a simple question; "why me?". It's not a dumb question. While it is true that some victim's may just be int he wrong place at the wrong time (like a shark attack), others increase their vulnerability to crime and criminals (like joining a gang). So it's helpful to consider what types of factors criminals may consider when choosing a victim. I thought it would be simpler to frame the discussion within the topic of burglary. In truth, some of the selection criteria can be applied to other crimes as well but let's just stick with burglary for now.

Burglars typically choose a place to burglarize for one of three reasons. These are broad categories with some cross over but they will serve for the discussion.

1. Inside knowledge (intelligence)
2. Vulnerability with reward
3. Opportunity (wrong place wrong time)

Inside Knowledge: 
In the military this is called intelligence. You'd be amazed how often a burglary can be tied to intelligence. The world war two warning of  "loose lips sink ships" actually works with criminals too. If criminals find out that you have things of value they may want to look for an opportunity to take them. I often say that many criminals want "easy" so you have to do your best to avoid helping them. Here are some of the biggest sources of "intelligence leaks" in the household.

1. Children. Children are the worst. Kids love to tell stories and brag to their friends. "We just got a new computer", "My mom just inherited a bunch of money", "I just got a brand new XBOX", etc. Even when talking to 'trusted' friends the conversation may be overheard by others.
2. Social Media. I am always amazed at people that tell the twitterverse that they are on vacation. They get on Facebook and say "Hey! We're a thousand miles away from our house and NO ONE is watching it". Many don't have the smarts to lie and say something like "Thanks God my brother is on leave from the Marine Corps and is watching the house with an attack dog!".
3. Visitors to the house. This can be anyone from your son's new "gangsta friend", ex-boyfriend, or repairmen. We often don't consider what a stranger might see in our homes like jewelry being left out, or even where we keep money (when you pay a serviceman).

Vulnerability with Reward:
I link these two together because the burglar is more likely to exploit a vulnerability if they know there is a reward for their risk. One of the biggest vulnerabilities is easy access to the residence or business. Some of the biggest culprits are;

1. Open garage doors
2. Open windows or unlocked doors (houses and vehicles)
3. Items of value with easy access (like a purse or wallet left on the front seat of your car)

Other things can include ladders propped up against houses (for easy access to second story windows that are usually left unlocked) or newspapers or fliers piled up outside (indicating you're on vacation). The reward/risk issue is equally important. Wanna guess a percentage of how many homes displaying signs like "Dangerous dog", "Video Surveillance Used" or "Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again" get burglarized compared to ones not displaying butterfly flags? Most criminals want "easy". Now all of this changes if your house is the only place to get what they want. So if you have a rare and valuable item (like the Hope Diamond) then the motivated criminal will look for a way to get it but, that is usually not the case. However, the higher the value of the item being sought, the more risk one may take to get it.

Opportunity:
This embodies the "wrong place, wrong time" meme. Obviously, the best way to avoid being in the wrong place is being more selective about the places we visit. I spend a fair amount of time in the back country of the Rocky Mountains. I feel much safer walking through the woods at midnight than an alley in many metropolitan cities. Some places are "wrong" for some folks no matter the time of day. Your characters may increase their risk of being attacked (mugged) because they are forced to go places they wouldn't normally choose. Maybe your PI has to go into a seedy bar or maybe somebody gets arrested and goes to jail for a few days. These exposures put them at increased risk. They may survive without incident but the tension is still there. From a criminal perspective it is literally the fly in the spider net. They simply wait for some unsuspecting victim to cross paths with them. The single attractive woman or suburban teenager with the iPod that has to ride a subway through the bad part of town at midnight.

Considering these factors when developing your plots, characters, and dialog will help explain the motivations of your characters and give a perspective for the reader when digesting the story. Remember, the motive has to align with the risk/reward calculus to be believable. A criminal won't rob a homeless man with a shopping cart full of old smelly clothes, empty liquor bottles, and a dead fish ;).

Understanding the Chain of Custody

Chain of Custody is is a legal definition that many people outside the law don't understand. I see it commonly misrepresented in print and on the big screen so I thought it might be helpful to explain it (at least how it is understood in the United States). As an author you might think that this topic is too wonky. Most readers won't know the difference so why venture into the tall grass right? There's a ring of truth to that line of thinking but, understanding the chain of custody can help you drive a story by introducing conflict. Breaks in the chain of custody can do the same thing in real life!

Basically, the chain of custody is a record of who had possession of each item of evidence at any given time. Notice I say possession and not just proximity, that is a legal difference. More on that in a bit. It is a mechanism to demonstrate that the evidence has been protected and further, who had possession of it so they can be interviewed about their actions if need be. The chain begins the moment the evidence is collected until it is presented in court before the jury. Between those two events the custodian (the person responsible for the evidence) must demonstrate how the integrity was maintained. Law enforcement agencies do this primarily through two mechanisms.

The first is maintaining a written log. The log begins with the first person to collect the evidence from the crime scene, victim, suspect, etc. The form will describe the item (in detail) and have spaces for the names, dates, and times, the evidence changes hands. So as a CSI I may be the first to sign the form. When I "book" the item into the property bureau then the technician or clerk receiving the item will sign for it and I will sign it in the "released by" space. So when reviewing the form you'd be able to determine each and every person that took possession of the item and how long they had possession of it. These forms can list a number of items (say up to twenty) from the same crime scene but each item will have a unique number. Modern agencies use bar code systems but there may still be a physical signature or digital (coded) signature.

The second mechanism is the evidence packaging. When an item is packaged the custodian will seal it with either evidence tape (paper bags/envelopes) or a heat seal (plastic bags). The custodian will then sign their name, employee number, and date across the seal. That way if a lawyer questions whether or not the item could have been accessed by someone not on the form all you have to do is examine the seals. When I testify in court and introduce evidence is it common for me to have to examine a sealed bag and verify my signature and date before opening it for the jury. If I have to examine an item that has been sealed by another person then I always make a new opening (cut) away from the original seal. That way I don't damage the original.

If a bag is found to be opened or the items are unaccounted for then the chain is considered to be broken. The integrity of the evidence is dependent on the item, regardless of location. So, hypothetically speaking, leaving an un-bagged murder weapon unattended in the hallway of the police department would constitute a break even though the area is "secured". However, if the seal on an evidence bag is unbroken the same item could conceivably be left in a public place without compromising it (although there would still be one hell of a legal fight). In the first example you couldn't demonstrate that the item wasn't tampered with. In the second example you may be able to.

This brings me to an important distinction. Oftentimes I have seen writers describe the chain of custody as "broken" simply because someone came into contact or proximity of the evidence (even when sealed in bags), Usually this is not the case. Consider evidence sent to the FBI crime lab in Quantico, Virginia. Most agencies have to mail their evidence to the crime lab. There is no legal requirement to have each and every mail carrier handling the box to sign a chain of custody form. Tow truck drivers don't sign for vehicles. Likewise, every detective or CSI that enters the property warehouse doesn't have to sign for each item in there just because they came into the vicinity of it. It is only required when you are in a physical position to alter or damage the evidence through physical contact.

So why do I care about this Tom? Boooring! I agree that 99% of the time chain of custody issues are tedious and mundane. But, those moments when the chain is broken can lead to massive fireworks. A compromised chain may force a judge to exclude certain evidence. If that evidence is the murder weapon or a surveillance tape then the whole case may go up in smoke! These mistakes most commonly occur with outside experts unfamiliar with the chain of custody issues. Take a university professor for example. Maybe they are the leading expert on aquatic snails (glamorous I know), the same type you found on your murder victim. This guy may have never worked on a forensic case in his life (or kissed a girl) so the whole experience can be quite exciting. He may not realize that leaving your evidence in his lab where all his grad students and anyone capable of turning a doorknob could gain access to the evidence. Hell, he may even show it off.

These breaks are even more devastating when they are "discovered" during the course of testimony. Imagine the look on the prosecutor's face when they learn their key evidence was compromised! The break in the chain may be unintentional or an act of sabotage. Other occupations that may contribute to a break in the chain could include private investigators, defense experts, or tow truck drivers. I remember a case (not mine thankfully) where an agency towed a suspect vehicle to a storage lot intending to search it the next day. They locked the vehicle but the suspect had a spare key. That night he scaled the fenced lot and stole his own vehicle back! As writers, you can get as creative as you want. A break in the chain of custody can alter the course of a story in much the same way it can alter a case. Evidence can become useless and investigators may have to go back to the drawing board. This all adds up to a ton of conflict and conflict keeps the reader engaged and itching to turn the page. Tempers flare, careers are lost, bad guys get away with crimes, cats and dogs cohabitate; it's a real mess! So get creative and most of all, have fun with it!

How to Write a "Bad" Expert Witness

by Tom Adair author of The Scent of Fear (2012)

One of the most interesting observations I have made in the courtroom is what passes for an "expert witness". In the United States, judges act as "gate keepers" for the admissibility of scientific evidence and expert testimony. The legalese can get pretty convoluted but in the end the judge can pretty much rule any way they want and let the jury decide how much "weight" they prescribe to the evidence or testimony. Also, in the US the burden of proof is on the prosecution and some judges give a bit more latitude to the defense in terms of whom they offer to testify for their client. I know of one case where an "expert" in entomology was allowed to provide expert testimony in a murder case. Their qualifications? They worked at the local zoo and raised insects to feed to the reptiles.

At times throughout my law enforcement career I have worked as an independent expert for both the prosecution and defense. Defense experts sometimes get a bad rap in my opinion just because they work for the accused. In truth, there are some really good experts out there whose only allegiance is to their analysis. However...there are some "experts" who may not follow a strict ethical code. When you come up against one of these folks it can get really frustrating. They may seem very credible to a lay jury, judge, and even the attorney unless someone is there to point out the inconsistencies. As a writer, understanding how these experts behave can add some real texture to your dialog and storyline.

One of the biggest tells is their tendency to set standards for others that they themselves do not meet. They love to make grandiose statements about how investigations or analyses should be conducted.  In one case an opposing expert said that a "good investigator" reviewed every single photo and every single piece of evidence in a homicide. He sat up on the witness stand with a semi-large photo book so I had the prosecutor ask him if those were the photos (provided by defense) that he had examined and then had him count them. Long story short he had reviewed only 10% of the photos taken at the crime scene. I then had him review the evidence log showing which items of evidence he had checked out for his examination. This time it was less than 5%. So in a few questions he confirmed though his own definition that he was a "bad" investigator and his testimony was largely ignored by the jury.

Sometimes it is not the expert but the attorney that lays the groundwork. They may attack the opposing expert for not having enough training, experience, or certifications. They basically set the bar very high for the opposing expert. However, they don't consider (or maybe they hope no one else will) whether their own expert meets those same standards. So you could have an attorney challenge an expert on the basis that they lack a board certification in a particular forensic science field. Of course, when their expert takes the stand and lacks the same qualifications the jury is left wondering just how seriously the attorney believed what they said.

In another case which happened about a decade ago an expert claimed that a new DNA process (and machine used to do the testing) were unreliable and shouldn't be considered by the court. The opposing attorney called the manufacturer to provide a rebuttal and imagine their surprise when they discovered that the expert in question had bought one of the units for their practice at the cost of over $80,000.00! They had even used it for examinations in other cases and never once mentioned their hesitation to use the technology when testifying in those cases. So the opposing attorney simply asked something like "why would you spend so much money on a technology that you claim is unreliable and then use it in other cases?"

It has been said that a courtroom is two thousand square feet surrounded by reality. In truth, each side is allowed to advocate their own position and interpretation of the evidence within certain rules and guidelines. This reality leave a lot of wiggle room though. A good attorney can convince a jury of the absolute truth of their claim. That is, until the opposing attorney takes the stage. Trials can seem like a roller coaster ride going up and down and upside down. Your experiences range from nausea to unmitigated joy. I thing that is the essence of good writing too. So if you are writing a courtroom scene don't just settle for a he said, she said type of exchange. Give your characters some secrets or positions they can't possibly maintain. After all, that's what the "experts" do.

A Day in the Life of a CSI

A few days ago a young student contacted me about a paper she was writing. What is a day in the life of a CSI like? It was an excellent question with a not so simple answer. You see, the job of a criminalist is largely reactionary. We have to wait for crimes to occur before we spring into action and criminals are never courteous enough to send an RSVP. The only things scheduled in our lives are meetings, courtroom testimony, and vacations, all of which can be upended in the blink of an eye. Knowing that, I wasn't sure how to answer her question because there never is a "normal" day in the crime lab. You walk in the door each morning with no idea what you might find. The day may be dull or you may get called to the worst mass murder in state history.  I suppose that CSIs have to remain emotionally and physically fluid. Like a race car ready to switch gears from neutral to red-line in seconds.We tend to go with the flow and accept change easily.  So I thought it might be best to describe both a "slow" day and a "busy" day while admitting that most days have elements of both.

The "Slow" Day:
I wish I could say that every day is like an episode of CSI: Las Vegas but I'd be lying. We don't even get a soundtrack. CSIs have a lot of boring duties. First, there's report writing. As writers, you may not fully appreciate how boring this can be but report writing is dull and unimaginative. It has to be. As Joe Friday loved to say we just want to convey the facts and rarely do we inject opinion. Then there are the meetings...ugh. Some productive, most a waste of time, and all of them mandatory. You may be stuck in a four hour meeting on verbal conflict resolution or a lecture on the proper investigative response to a nuclear detonation (which surprisingly to me was not run like hell). Some training is by request. These are the specialized schools or classes where we learn to apply the skills of our trade. Sometimes a good school feels more like a vacation but in the back of your mind you recognize that lab requests are piling up in your inbox..

Court can be a mix of both good and bad.  You never know what an attorney will ask you so that keeps you on your toes and presents a bit of intrigue to the proceedings. That's assuming you actually make it into the courtroom. Since there is no way to tell how long any given testimony will take you often have to wait around for your turn. This may be hours or even days. The magazines are old, the coffee sucks, and the television is permanently turned to either the weather channel or Judge Judy. It's kind of like hell without the culture.

When you aren't tied up with those fun activities you'll likely be working on laboratory requests. These too can run the spectrum from interesting to mundane. Let me tell you...after processing three hundred documents with Ninhydrin the shine of the assignment rubs off a little. Sometimes you get something fun like a gun or knife used in a serious crime or something requiring a novel or unique processing technique; but you're more likely to be processing trash or beer bottles from a stolen car or gang party. The good news is that there is never a shortage of lab requests from detectives all of which will be labeled "RUSH". It doesn't matter how petty the crime is, they needed it yesterday.

The "Busy" Day:
I think it's safe to say that every CSI lives for the busy day. Whether you are running from call to call or at one of the biggest scene of your career, the adrenalin rush and excitement seem to know no limits. Some CSIs in large crime ridden cities may disagree with that last part because they go from call to call every shift of every day but most CSIs don't experience that. You may go from a burglary, to a bank robbery, to a rape, and then a suicide; all before lunch! I've had seven deaths and an aircraft arson all in a twenty four hour span. Yes, it can be tiring and taxing on your body but it beats the hell out of report writing. You may be running on little or no sleep. If you're lucky you can stop by a drive thru window or a patrol officer will run and grab you something to eat. Oftentimes you're too busy to care. Of course, almost every busy day is followed by a slow day of paper work and report writing but, in that moment, out there running from call to call, you feel alive. You feel needed.

There is something about being a CSI I can't really put into words. Being entrusted with the responsibility of chasing bad guys is worth all the tedious aspects of the job.  Of all the people in the city or county, they called you. It's your turn to make a difference. The busy day is where we learn to be better CSIs. There is no college course that can compare to an actual crime scene. This above all else, is probably why I love the busy days. I learn, I grow, and I build my confidence in a career filled with criticism and doubt. So, what is a day in the life of a CSI? It's a spin of the Roulette wheel, a roll of the dice. You never know where your number will land but you know that no matter what...you'll be playing again the next day.

In some ways it's comparable to writing a novel. I have an outline but my story develops organically, much like you I would guess. There are times I write a scene that I love; a scene I never envisioned when I sat down to type that morning. Other days I just read and research. Sound familiar? If you're writing a scene with a CSI try to imagine what kind of day they are having. How will the activities of that day affect their demeanor, their dialog, judgement, or their critical thinking? Will they be physically taxed or ready to spring from the starting gate? No matter how you write it, a day in the life of a CSI is never the same. Whether slow of fast a CSI's day is just waiting to be written.

Written by Tom Adair, author of the 2012 crime thriller The Scent of Fear. Tom also blogs at forensics4fiction.com.

Calling All CSIs!

Each post, I try to demystify some aspect of forensics or crime scene investigations as it relates to crime writers. Recently I was reminded that some writers are interested in things that I would otherwise regard as too mundane. It's a failure on my part to assume that writers understand those things I and others in law enforcement take for granted due to their ubiquity. So in that light I decided to explain one of the most common occurrences in a criminal investigation; the call out. Let me begin by saying that every agency can have it's own call out procedure and that procedure can change from one administration to the next. However, in my experience most call out procedures will relate to one of two CSI schedules. Both of these schedules, in and of themselves, are important for crime writers to recognize because they affect how your characters respond to scenes.

All CSIs work in shifts and the number of shifts is largely dependent on the size of the organization. Large organizations like the New York City or Denver Police Departments have 24 hour (or near) shift coverage. Typically these consist of three shifts; days (banker hours), mids (late afternoon to late evening), and graves (late evening to early morning). The specific hours vary from agency to agency but the key aspect of this type schedule is that CSIs generally work scenes only in their shift hours. So if your character is on days they won't be responding to a call at 10 PM. The popular CSI television series regularly stretches this reality as the main characters work the graves shift but always seem to be out working during the day too! That's a lot of overtime. CSIs can work over-shift if they have a major crime scnee but everyone has to sleep at some point so keep that in mind.

The second type of shift is a day shift with after hours on-call rotation. This is the type of schedule I worked throughout my career. So I would work during the day and then if I was needed at night I would get called out. There are limits to this system as well so there is generally another criminalist called the back-up who handles the next call out should one come in or if I needed extra help. With this type of schedule your character can be realistically working at any hour of the day across any shift. This gives you a bit more flexibility when writing scenes because you're not limited by the ending of a shift.

Now that we have that spelled out we need to look at the mechanism of a call out. CSIs are a finite resource. As such, their time and efforts are (should be) carefully regulated. In the real world an agency doesn't want to call out a CSI after hours unless their skills are really needed. You don't want them burning the midnight oil on a recovered stolen vehicle when there might be a homicide call out a few hours later.  In truth, I have been called out for some ridiculous tasks like putting a pair of underwear in a bag or making a photocopy (I kid you not) but most of the time the calls were legitimate. To prevent unwarranted call outs most CSIs can only be called out by their supervisors or detectives on scene. Patrol officers must request a CSI though their supervisor and that supervisor has to call the CSI supervisor. Here is where is gets interesting for you as a writer. Many times, the CSI is called out by someone who is not at the crime scene. This may seem counter-intuitive and it is but it is a function of reality. If the person calling out the CSI (Dispatcher, Sergeant, Bureau Chief, etc) is not on scene then the information your CSI gets will be second or third hand.

When a CSI gets a call we take notes of the pertinent information. What time did we get the call, who called, the crime scene location, what is known of the crime, etc. The dispatcher calling your CSI may not be handling the actual call so the CSI may get less than accurate information.  This is a really important fact because CSIs don't usually carry every piece of equipment they may need at a crime scene. It can be really frustrating to ask simple questions like "was the victim shot or stabbed?" and receive "you'll find out when you get there" type answers. If I got a call of say a gunshot homicide I would spend the commute time thinking about the various evidence I may encounter and what tasks I may need to perform. I built a picture in my mind based on previous scenes I've worked. So if I show up and it's a suicide by overdose I have to shift gears dramatically. Not the end of the world but, certainly a source of tension. Your character may wonder what else have they failed to tell me? 

Inaccurate information is more a result of fluid changes occurring during the interviewing of witnesses and cursory search of the crime scene, than incompetence. But as an author you can use that uncertainty and misinformation to your advantage. I wrote about a staged death scene in The Scent of Fear in which a homicide was made to look like an accident and the investigator saw what they wanted to see. Just as an author frames a scene or storyline, the initial call out frames the response from the CSI. That is why we like to ask a lot of questions before we ever turn the ignition and begin our response. A patrol officer may think a death is very suspicious (alternatively not suspicious) whereas a seasoned detective or CSI asking the right questions may realize they need more help or specialized equipment.

This may seem like a lot of inside baseball type stuff. I guess it is but, you may be able to use this insight to create conflict and tension between your characters while throwing a few curves to your reader. As a reader I like being kept a little off balance. I love being surprised and unsure of where the story will lead and I'm sure most of you do too. Just like real CSIs, we like to predict expectations based on the available information and when that information changes we have to quickly reshuffle our thoughts. That can be very frustrating to a real life CSI but it makes for great reading in my opinion.  


By Tom Adair
Author of The Scent of Fear and  Planning Your Career in Forensics a guide for prospective students and teachers. Tom also blogs at forensics4fiction.

Exploding the Myth of Bullets in Fire

There is a common depiction in movies and novels of bullets exploding and "shooting off" when exposed to fire. The idea is pretty straight forward. Throw a cartridge into a fire and the heat will set off the gunpowder. It can make for some harrowing scenes. The gunshots can cause a distraction, pin down the cops, or even kill someone. Unfortunately, the entire idea is fiction.

Heat damage to live ammunition occurs more frequently than you may think. Over 70 million homes have ammunition in the United States and when one of those homes goes up in flames, so does the ammo. We call it "cook off". The process will generate the sound of gunfire but little else. Huge cook offs at military (small arms) ammunition depots have been recorded with little or no destructive effects (other than the fire that is).

Firearms work because they contain a small explosion. All of the gasses and energy released from the casing has only one direction to go; out the muzzle. Barrel diameters match the caliber of the bullets being fired through them. The fit is extremely tight so the gasses stay behind the bullet and propel it down the barrel. But when the cartridge is not in the firearm then the energy is released in all directions from the casing opening. They're like tiny little pipe bombs with a loose end cap. The gunpowder also burns at a slower rate in a fire as opposed to a primer charge. When the heat ignites the gunpowder the bullet will basically "pop" off. Since there is nothing to contain the pressure, the bullet can't fly off at the designed muzzle velocity.

So as a sound effect or distraction, throwing cartridges into a fire can be very effective. That doesn't mean you can't get hurt if you're standing next to the fire (don't try this anywhere) but the bullets won't be traveling with the speed they normally leave the barrel of a gun.So if you are writing a scene where a character throws a handful of small caliber bullets into a fire remember that they act more as a sound effect than anything else.

Re-hydrating Fingers at the Morgue

A lot of people believe that victims are identified by family or friends. We've all seen the movie scene where the mother, brother, or husband looks through the glass window and declares the identity of the deceased. In truth, we don't discount family identifications but we usually don't rely on them either, unless we have no other options.  In order to legally prove a person's identity we typically need more than just some person's word.  This is especially true when the condition of the body may preclude an accurate identification.

Shriveled fingers

Bodies in various stages of decomposition can be very difficult to identify. The pathologist may take x-rays of dentition or other areas. They may search for serialized medical devices like pacemakers, breast implants, or stabilizing plates. Of course the best method for identification is the fingerprint. Fingerprints are unique and permanent (meaning the patterns don't change during life unless seriously injured). making them ideal for identification. Most people in the United States have been fingerprinted to some degree. The most common fingerprint record is the single fingerprint  found associated with the driver's license. CSIs can also search for fingerprints on the victim's belongings (in their home, office, or vehicle).

But what do you do when the fingers have become shriveled or dried out during decomposition? Fingers can become shriveled in a day or two depending on the environmental conditions. The skin is still intact but it contracts and becomes rigid. This condition makes it almost impossible to get good quality impressions. The best way I can describe it is the difference between a raisin and a grape. So the real question becomes...how do you turn a raisin back into a grape? One method is the use of Photo-flo 200.

Photo-flo is a Kodak product used in rinsing photographic film during the development process. It's kind of like a really powerful soap. I'm sure the engineers at Kodak never envisioned how CSIs would someday use the solution. CSIs love to come up with new uses for products we have easy access to and this is no exception. To star the process we have to sever the finger or fingers we want to restore. The fingers are then soaked in the Photo-flo for anywhere from 24 hours to a week depending on how bad their condition is. The main objective is to get the tissue pliable again.

Once the tissue is pliable we have to inject a gel called "tissue builder". This is a semi-clear viscous material resembling epoxy (although not sticky). The tissue builder is injected under the skin using a syringe. The material expands the pliable skin, stretching it out to it's "normal" condition. Once this is done the finger can be rolled just like it would be in life. It only takes one good finger to make an identification so we have to check their records to see which ones might be the best to use. Once that is done it is a simple matter of comparing the fingerprint patterns and ridge detail to make an identification.

Making Silencers Silent

 A hit man just wouldn't be hit man without a silenced firearm. But, silencers (technically referred to as suppressors) affect only one aspect of sound. You see, in order to properly use a silencer in your writing you need to understand how sound works following the discharge of a gun. Sound is important evidence. Whether writing about a barking dog or a gunshot it's important for writers to understand how sounds will be heard by various characters. Sound is basically produced by disruptions in the air causing pressure waves. Modern firearms create two distinct sounds when fired. 

The first sound is created when the cartridge is fired. A modern cartridge is comprised of a casing which houses the powder and seats the bullet. On the bottom of the cartridge is the primer. This is a small disc in the center of the head stamp. When the firing pin strikes the primer it ignites the gunpowder in the cartridge and the pressure forces the bullet down the barrel. The gases produced by this small explosion are also forced down the barrel. This is the first source of sound produced from a gunshot.

Suppressors are screwed or seated onto the muzzle of the barrel. You're probably very aware of their appearance. They look like a thicker tube (usually twice as thick as the barrel at least) sticking out the front of the gun. Suppressors have a variety of proprietary designs but they all function in basically the same way. Baffles inside the cylinder "dampen" the gas pressure and sometimes even slow the velocity of the bullet. By dispersing and dampening the gasses the suppressor reduces the disruption of air; which reduces sound. The more the baffles dampen the air the less sound produced.But the use of a silencer (suppressor) may not eliminate the sound of a gunshot.

That fact is due to the second main source of sound in a gunshot; the sonic boom of the bullet traveling through air. This is an independent act that occurs after the bullet has left the suppressor. It is well known by shooters that the bullet strikes the target before the sound wave does.  Most modern cartridges are capable of reaching super-sonic speeds. Putting a suppressor on the end of a gun doesn't usually change this fact. I've worked for law enforcement agencies that used suppressed weapons in a variety of tactical assaults. One "benign" use would be to shoot out the tires on a suspect vehicle parked outside his residence while the SWAT team is preparing to make entry.

In order to do that the shooter must use "sub-sonic" ammunition. This ammunition is designed to have a muzzle velocity below the speed of sound. Still powerful enough to shoot out a tire but not enough to make a sonic boom. Most authors don't get into this level of detail but it wouldn't hurt to mention that your character is firing sub-sonic ammunition with their suppressed weapon. You'll demonstrate your knowledge about how sound works and might keep a couple of critics at bay. Sub-sonic ammunition is easy to find and some bench shooters use it for plinking so as not to disturb their neighbors or damage their ears. Now there will always be some level of sound from the mechanical function of the slide or dropping of the hammer but for all practical purposes the weapon will be "silent".

The Wrong Way to Measure a Knife Wound

By Tom Adair
Author of The Scent of Fear

I don't want o get too technical here because, let's face it, the topic is kind of gross. Bu there is a wrong way to measure a knife wound at autopsy. Making this mistake in the real world can have disastrous consequences but in a novel it can be downright exciting! Before we start let's examine why we might measure a knife wound.

The main reason it to get a better understanding of the blade type. Knives (and other sharp instruments) can have many sizes and shapes but they will be either a single edged blade (one side only) or a double sided blade (like a dagger). A wound from a single edged weapon will have one "blunt" end and one "pointed" end. But CSIs also want to know something about the size of the blade. Not just the length but the width.

Here is where is gets tricky. 

The body (and skin) is pliable. As such, it can stretch and distort the wound depending on how the weapon is applied. Because of that, wound measurements are generally considered "maximum" measurements. For example, if you find a knife wound that is 4" deep in the abdomen does that mean a 3 1/2" knife can be excluded? The short answer is no (assuming that the abdomen was compressed a half inch during the thrust). Most of us have at least that much play in our gut don't we (if you answer no, I don't like you anymore ;))? Now sure, an 8" knife may only penetrate 4" but usually when someone is stabbing another they are doing it with a lot of force and the blade will go all the way in. But the other characteristic to consider is the width of the blade. That is the distance between the two ends of the wound.

Knife wounds often resemble a "football" (American) or an oval with pointed ends in shape. The reason for this shape in part rests with the elasticity of the skin. There are also properties called the lines of langer but I won't get into that level of detail here. Just realize that skin can lay open when cut. This can effectively shorten the distance between the two ends and thus, the total width. So when measuring the total width of the wound the pathologist will pinch or press the two sides together (like closing the wound) before measuring. Another issue is that since a knife blade cuts, it can expand a wound depending on how the weapon is wielded.

So as a writer, what does this mean for you? Well, knife wounds often go through more than skin. They can go through clothing as well. Here is how you can insert some mystery to your scene. Imagine a pathologist doesn't "pinch" the ends together and measures the wound as being 25mm in width. The body is then cremated. Now let's say your detective (or other character) looks at the clothing and the knife hole is 30mm? What kind of confusion might that cause? Now technically there are a lot of things that can affect the size of a hole in clothing as well. Blood saturation can shrivel a hole to make it appear smaller but you get the point. Mis-measurement is a problem in any area of forensics but when it happens with the murder weapon or wound the results can be disastrous! 

Things that make you go hmmm...

By Tom Adair;
Author of The Scent of Fear

Criminalists are a strange bunch. We see the world differently than most others. Early in your career you make an effort to look for clues but after a while subtle things just seem to set off your radar. Such was the case the other day when I met an old colleague for lunch. He's a really good CSI as well as a Vietnam War veteran. We met at his favorite burger shop Smashburger (if you're not from Colorado you're missing out!) to get caught up on the grand kids, life, and "shop talk". While we were eating a guy dressed in fatigues walked in with a woman. There are a number of military bases in the area (as well as recruitment centers) so seeing a soldier is not uncommon. But there was something about this guy that grabbed my attention. Not having served in the military I have only a passing knowledge of uniform protocol. I casually began paying attention and noticed several things that seemed odd to me. First, his hair was longer than mine but still less than shoulder length. Some SPEC OPS soldiers are allowed longer hair and beards but it was more the length and style which seemed wrong. The camouflage pattern didn't seem right either. The elements were larger and showed no signs of sun fading. He was a "buck" Sergeant according to his arm patch but a tab below the patch labeled him as a sniper. Now I'm no expert but sniper's don't typically announce their abilities like that. A sniper is a target to the enemy so announcing your skill is kind of like putting a target on your head.

At some point I looked at my buddy and asked him to take a look. Without hesitation he said with a smirk "the guy in the 'sniper' uniform?" Turns out he had seen the guy too and done much of the same assessment. Obviously, we never approached the guy and said "what gives?" but both of us were convinced the guy was a fraud. Beyond the uniform the guy just didn't have that "look" in his eyes. You can see it in the eyes of many police and military. They are always aware of their surroundings, even if just giving a subtle glance around. Combat veterans have a very "hardened" look about them which I have a hard time describing but an easy time spotting. Not a mean look, or a paranoid darting of the eyes, just a look of extreme confidence mixed with a pinch of caution. We were both staring at this guy and he never once looked our way. It was like his radar was completely shut off.

I was reminded of this experience when I recently read yet another story of stolen valor where a man claimed to be a US Navy SEAL sniper. Apparently, this is a common tactic to meet women. Capt. Larry Bailey (former SEAL) famously stated "there were about 500 active duty SEALs during the Vietnam War and I've met all 20,000 of them". I don't know how these guys think they can fool the real SEALS. Seeing as how heroes like Brandon Webb trained many (if not most) of the SEAL snipers today it's a wonder how these con-men think they can get away with their lies.

SEAL segue aside, the point of this post is that CSIs and others are trained to notice small details which seem out of order. Even if we don't have an expert knowledge of a subject (like me and military uniforms) something still catches our eye. This is an important attribute to consider when you are writing a police procedural. Any of us can make mistakes and overlook something small but the more inconsistencies we see the more likely our inner alarm will sound. My friend and I silently took in the same details about the same guy without ever alerting the other.  We found nothing "suspicious" about the other patrons.

These "alarms" are often called "red flags" and are shaped by our life experiences and interests (hobbies, past occupations, etc). The training CSIs receive simply helps refine our ability to filter the information. Ultimately, it means that we're tougher to fool. So if your bad guy is staging the crime scene or simply offering a fake alibi you should consider how your character will evaluate that information. There is a saying among interrogators..."little lie, big lie" which simply means if suspects are willing to lie about small inconsequential things then maybe they are lying about bigger issues too. When auditing your scenes or developing your characters pay close attention to their interests and life experiences. How will these experiences shape the filtering of information in their environment? Are they lying about something they have great knowledge or experience with? Are they making up a story based on a false perception (like the plot to a movie or book in their home). Fooling a good detective or CSI will be difficult so you'll need to think about how to construct the lie or ruse in such a way that is plausible. Someone once said the best lies contain 80% truth. That may be accurate but a good detective or CSI will sniff out the other 20%.

Interview with Former CSI and Author Tom Adair

It’s Tom’s day to post, but he’s been shy to talk about his first novel, so I prompted him with a bunch of questions. If you haven’t heard, Tom released The Scent of Fear recently, and based on his background as an exceptional forensic scientist, it’s no surprise his novel is pretty special too. Here’s more in Tom’s own words:

LJ: Did a specific event or crime inspire this story?

Tom: They say that you should write what you know. While the story is fictional, many of the events are inspired by actual cases I’ve worked. I’ve changed many of the details but a number of colleagues have commented on the similarities. I think it adds tremendous realism to the story by keeping it within the property line of my experience. In some ways writing this novel was therapeutic too. The crimes I saw in my career were not the types of things you can talk about at the dinner table. My family knew what I did but they never had a clear picture. It was my way of protecting them from the evils I saw. In The Scent of Fear I had the opportunity to shed some baggage I had been holding on to. It gave me permission to unburden myself.

LJ: Who is your protagonist modeled after? Because you’ve had the same career as your protag, is it difficult to keep her actions/thoughts distinctly separate from yours?
Tom: I don’t want them to be separate. Put simply, she’s the girl next door that can kick in the door. Sarah Richards could be compared to so many young professional self confident women in law enforcement. I love the depth her character offers me as a writer. Sarah has a wonderful mix of strength and vulnerability I couldn’t create with a male protagonist. She is young and impulsive and that makes for some hairy situations she finds herself in, but that can be said of so many young professionals. Sarah was created as a franchise character and I can’t wait to see how she develops with age and experience (just as I did).

LJ: Does the novel have a theme or message you want the reader to come away with?
Tom: Be fearless! So many of us let fear run our lives and it usually makes us miserable. Fear also keeps us from reaching our full potential. Sarah has fears but she must rely on her inner strength and morality to persevere (physically and spiritually). That is her story. In the end she only has herself to rely upon (metaphorically speaking; that was not a spoiler).

LJ: What else do you want readers to know about this story?
Tom: On a serious level I wanted to give readers a peek behind the curtain of crime. Evil does exist in our world. I’ve met it, spoken to it, even been threatened by it. We tell our children that monsters exist only in bedtime stories but they don’t. Monsters are out there; among us. Be prepared to meet them.

LJ: At what point in your law enforcement career did you realize you wanted to write instead? What was it like to make the transition?
Tom: The novel (trilogy) has been rolling around in my head for over a decade but I always figured I’d just write it when I retired. I never thought that day would come so quickly. I guess, like a lot of folks in that business, I hit a saturation point. I never saw it coming. Apparently the dark events in our lives can ferment until our soul can bear them no longer. I just wanted out. The problem was that my particular skill set is not very applicable in the civilian world. I had been a technical writer, not a fiction writer but it seemed like the right fit. Looking back I think it was fate.

LJ: Are you able to use specific incidents from your career in your fiction?
Tom: I’ve heard the term faction thrown around and I like it. A blend of fiction and reality. I’m very careful not to betray and confidences or divulge anything that might complicate any open investigations but that still leaves me a broad range of experiences to tap into.


LJ: What’s next for you? Are you working on another novel?
Tom: The Scent of Fear is the first in a trilogy and I am busy working on the second portion of the story which delves deeper into the motives of the serial sniper. I don’t want to give away too much but just as in The Scent of Fear there is a parallel story line of murder. I’ve always liked stories in which the protagonist must juggle different problems. I have to be careful not to overwhelm the reader with minutiae but real CSIs have to deal with many professional and personal distractions so why should our characters be much different?

FYI, Amazon Prime members can now check out The Scent of Fear free!