One of the nice things
about writing genre fiction is that there are organizations that celebrate
practically each genre. As a mystery writer, I belong to Sisters in Crime, and
lucky for me, there is a chapter in Orange County with monthly meetings. We
have all kinds of guest speakers, from other authors to law enforcement experts
to ex-CIA operatives. As both a writer and a reader, I find everyone
fascinating.
This month, we had Daniel
McKerren, a man who spent thirty years as a police officer and now works as a
freelance investigator with insurance companies, law enforcement, etc,
specifically as a computer forensics and data recovery specialist. It was an
interesting talk, although it started out, well, I’d call it wonky. You might
call it boring.
He began by telling us
how computers work. They are full of on/off switches called bits and eight bits make a byte and they are arranged in sectors and accessed by pointers in
another sector, and so on. As a former software engineer, I kept thinking, “Yeah,
yeah, I know, I know, get to the crime solving part.” Stay with me, here.
Eventually, I saw the
point to his explanations: he had to educate everyone in the room so that his
crime-solving discussion would have context. People think they can delete files
and no one can ever find them again, even though we see on crime shows that the
computer-CSI guys can recover deleted files… but how? It’s all about the
pointers. When you delete a file, you are only deleting the pointer to that
file. The file contents are still floating around in their sectors, unless and
until they are overwritten by a new file. There is something you can do called wiping the disk, which sets all those
on/off switches to off, but don’t get cocky—there are still some labs that can
use magnetic technology to reset the switches to their last position. In which case, it would
suck to be you, if you were trying to hide something.
I kind of knew this, but
the one thing I didn’t know was the way forensics techs recover data. You see,
they don’t just fire up the suspect’s computer and dive in. That’s because
every time you start up your computer, you are altering the contents. Hardware
and peripheral checks are always performed by the operating system, which
results in updating the time stamps. Instead of hitting the
Power button, the tech removes the suspect’s hard drive and attaches a device
that uses an old-school, read-only DOS program to copy the data to another
drive that is read-only. At that point, the data can be extracted and the
original hard drive is bagged and tagged. Just hearing that
information made me want to run home and re-write a few scenes.
In addition, they have
to know how big the hard drive is because their warrant has to be that specific. Dan said if he took a 30G
hard drive to a location and the suspect had a 60G drive, he has to go back and
get another warrant, which gives the suspect time to try to wipe the drive.
Hell, he might even destroy the drive.
I don’t know of any way
to recover data from a hard drive that’s gone a few rounds in the garbage
disposal.
I was reminded of
Saturday’s post by J.H. Bográn, and how technology can be a stumbling block for
thriller/mystery writers. Dan’s talk inspired me to find ways to use technology
to my hero’s advantage.
His parting advice? “Technology is advancing at mach
speed. When anyone tells you that ‘they can’t get something specific from a
computer,’ add the word now to the
end of that sentence.”
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.
Inside knowledge (intelligence)
Vulnerability with reward
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.
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.
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!".
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;
Open garage doors
Open windows or unlocked doors (houses and vehicles)
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 ;).
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!
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 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.
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.
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.
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".
Invisible inks have been around for centuries; used by good and bad forces alike. Spies use them to report home and prisoners use them to pass messages to the outside. All along, CSI (types) have endeavored to uncover these secret writings so that the truth will out. Secret messages have great value to the writer and the reader. Sometimes even more to the unintended reader. Such was the case with British spy Benjamin Thompson in 1775 Boston and such is the case today with other unmentionables. I bring this up because using invisible inks might come in handy for your protagonist or the bad guys they are chasing. But in order to use invisible inks you have to know a little about them.
For our purposes let's assume that the best "inks" are the ones readily available and don't leave significant staining or odor once dried. These are most commonly organic in nature. Some common types include diluted urine, vinegar, sugar water, lemon juice, and milk. You're probably conjuring up images at this moment of how a character might use these inks. Maybe they are in a public bathroom with a killer outside. Maybe they are in a restaurant staring at the man that wants to abduct them. You may even imagine a prisoner sending a letter out through his attorney or mother.
The clever writer chooses a location that enhances the "invisibility" of the message. It might be on the back or in the margins of a letter written in colored ink. It may be on the inside of an envelope. It could even be under several layers of rolled toilet paper. CSIs learn to search for these messages without actually "seeing" them. There are two basic types of methods used to detect simple organic invisible inks. The application of heat or the use of a chemical reagent. The application of heat is one of the oldest methods. Heat will generally darken the writing making it visible. Some inks like urine can also be seen with an ultraviolet light without applying heat. To apply heat the most common methods are the use of an oven (low setting) or steam iron (without the steam). Documents can even be left in the sunlight but the development process may take hours or days depending on the temperature.
The use of chemical reagents obviously is a bit more involved in that obtaining the reagents requires more effort. Lemon juice can be developed with iodine and very diluted blood can be developed with Phenolphthalein or Ninhydrin. Some of the chemical reagents are hazardous and may require special handling procedures which is why CSIs typically use them more than others. Acquiring these reagents often leaves a "trail" that police or others can follow.
So if your character needs to pass a secret message I advise following the K.I.S.S. model. Keep it simple and use materials and methods that any third grader has access to. Don't be afraid to get creative in the hiding place either. Sometimes the most effective location is in plain sight. There may even be a "system" for delivering messages such as the third napkin in the dispenser on a given day. Some of that depends on the sophistication and circumstances of your character but as long as it makes sense to them the reader will follow along.
By Tom Adair; author of The Scent of Fear
I get a lot of questions from folks regarding dog searches so I figured today would be a good day to address one big difference between search methods. There are two basic types of "people" dogs can search for; living or dead. The training is different for both. That's because the "evidence" or scent the dog is searching for is different between living and dead victims. NecroSearch International and it's dog handlers have been investigating this issue for 25 years and other handlers have been going much longer. Dog tracking is an old "art" and we've learned a lot over the years. The one things we don't know with certainty is the exact molecules the dogs rely on most. That's for one simple reason. Dogs can't talk. That's okay though because we still learn a lot from working with well trained dogs and handlers.Each handler trains their dog to give a specific "alert" when they find the scent they are looking for. One famous handler I have known over the years trains his dogs to stop and sit.
When searching for living persons the dog is tracking their unique "scent". Millions of skin cells are sloughed off every day in our various activities and a well trained dog (like a bloodhound) can tell the difference between each person's "scent". To begin these searches the dog handler will introduce something from the victim (like an article of clothing) for the dog to acquire the scent. This item is called a scent article. A well trained dog may then follow that scent trail (sometimes many miles) to the source or until it becomes too degraded or diffused in the environment. The key aspect of this search is that the dog is searching for a unique "scent" given off only by the one person being searched for.
Searching for a deceased body is an entirely different process. When searching for a deceased person the dog is looking for "decomposing human scent", not the scent given off by a living person. Put simply, this is because the cells are breaking down and decomposing (not vital). This means that knowledgeable investigators would never use a scent article to acclimate the dog. There are several challenges to this type of search. The main problem is that the dog is looking for any decomposing human scent. This means that a dog will alert on any human decomposition fluid or tissue. So in addition to dead bodies they will also alert on things like urination spots, feces, and baby diapers. This is a huge concern in rural areas and trash dumps because investigators may have dozens of "alert" areas to investigate. The scent can persist for months or even years in some cases.
Another very interesting phenomenon is that dogs can not differentiate between the decomposing scent of humans and that of pigs. Pigs have been used for years as human surrogates in a variety of scientific studies. Pigs have a very similar biochemistry, skin to tissue ratio, and are large (relatively hairless) mammals like people. So if a body is believed to have been buried at a pig farm we have to use other methods to detect the body. This conflict isn't very common but it happens and police need to be aware of the issues surrounding these searches.
If you are writing a scene of a dog search it would be wise to understand the basic difference between these searches. The easiest way to remember is that living persons can be searched for specifically. In those searches your character will need some kind of scent article like a piece of clothing, hairbrush, or bedding (if they sleep alone). If your characters are looking for a dead body they will likely find a lot of red herring alerts. These are frustrating because the dog will give a "positive" hit but excavation of the soil may not reveal anything (such as in the case of public urination). You may be able to use that to your advantage in the story so think of how dozens of these "false hits" may affect morale. There is only so many baby diapers you can dig up before questioning the wisdom of getting out of bed that morning :).
Guest blog by Jon Jefferson, the writer half of bestselling crime-fiction duo Jefferson Bass
Forensic fans are cut from a different cloth from ordinary folks—specifically, I suspect, from the rubberized fabric of body bags. When ordinary folks find out I write a series called the Body Farm Novels, they look squeamish and quickly change the subject. Forensic fans, on the other hand (and you know who you are, people!) tend to get a gleam in their eyes and say, “Cool. Can I take a tour?!” Unfortunately, the answer is “no,” except to people who have compelling scientific or law-enforcement reasons to go; not enough staff and too many liability concerns.
Eleven years ago, I was lucky enough to go; in fact, I spent two months there at the Body Farm — the University of Tennessee’s Anthropology Research Facility — with a television crew in tow. I was writing and producing two one-hour documentaries for National Geographic. The plan for the first one, which we titled “Biography of a Corpse,” was to follow a research subject, a donated body, through the entire decomposition process. Once we’d gotten permission — not just from the university, but from the partner of a recently deceased man — we started shooting.
In his old life, our star had had a name; in his new life as a research subject, he took on a new identity, known only by a number: he became “31-01”: the 31st body donated to the Anthropology Department in the year 2001. He was one of four bodies being studied, over the course of a year, by a graduate student who was researching how the presence of clothing changes the decomposition rate of bodies, an important question, since most of the facility’s decomp studies had been conducted with nude bodies.
We began filming 31-01 the moment he came out of the cooler at the morgue at UT Medical Center. The body bag was laid on the ground, unzipped, and carefully tugged from beneath him. He was a white-haired man in his seventies, but he had the body of an athlete, a pentathlete, to be precise. One of the photos his partner gave me showed him hurling a javelin, his arm and shoulder looking as chiseled as a statue’s. Lying on the ground beneath the oaks and maples at the Body Farm, he appeared almost to be napping. But that peaceful appearance would change, and change fast. Within seconds, a blowfly alighted on 31-01’s face. It would be followed, in the minutes, days, and weeks to come, by many thousands more, as nature’s recycling crew began reclaiming him.
The process wasn’t going to be pretty, so why had 31-01’s partner agreed to let us film it, and broadcast it worldwide? “He loved science, he loved the human body, and he loved teaching people about the body,” she told me in an interview. He’d actually made other postmortem plans for himself —he’d arranged to donate his body to a medical school — but the school wasn’t able to take his body, so he’d come to the Body Farm as a way to honor the spirit of his last wishes. And the donation came just in the nick of time for our National Geographic documentary. “I think he would have really liked this,” she added with a sweet, poignant smile.
Besides making frequent visits to 31-01 with the video crew — daily at first, when the changes to his body were most rapid — I also rigged a 35-millimeter camera to take stills of him at regular intervals. By the time he was down to nearly bare bones, I had hundreds of photos. We pieced them together to make a film, eight weeks of decay, compressed into a 30-second movie. There’s no dialogue, and 31-01 doesn’t stir from the spot where he was laid, but there’s plenty of movement: his abdomen swells from bloat in his first week, then collapses, his belly going slack and hollow; insects come and go in waves; his facial features dissolve, and the skull beneath the skin emerges. In my favorite frame of the film, a leaf hangs in darkness above 31-01 for a thirtieth of a second, its fall halted in midair by the camera’s flash: a freeze-frame snapshot of mortality, both corporeal and arboreal.
In the years since 31-01 shuffled off his mortal coil before my eyes — my wondering, watchful, grateful eyes —I’ve seen that 30-second film dozens of times, maybe even hundreds of times. Just now, in fact, I took a minute to watch it again. It always ends the same for 31-01, just as it will end for us all, sooner or later.
But I remember another ending, too: the ending I put on the documentary that chronicled his decay. It was a montage of other photos, taken when he was alive, intact, and vigorous. In these, he seems to be an action verb: he is hurling his javelin; posing in his swimsuit by a canoe, his arms akimbo, muscles flexed; perching atop of his woodpile, his face propped on his hands, a big grin on his face.
Today the bones of 31-01 are tucked beneath Neyland Stadium at the University of Tennessee, where the Anthropology Department is housed. He dwells in a city of the dead, kept company by nearly 1400 other specimens in the William M. Bass Donated Skeletal Collection. But in my mind, he’s very much alive, and I’m proud to consider him, in some strange and blessed and life-changing way, a friend for life.
Jefferson Bass is the pen name of Jon Jefferson, writer, and Dr. Bill Bass, renowned forensic anthropologist. Dr. Bass, founder of the University of Tennessee's "Body Farm," is an author on more than 200 scientific publications. Jon Jefferson is a veteran journalist and documentary filmmaker; his two National Geographic documentaries on the Body Farm were seen around the world. Jefferson and Bass have collaborated on two nonfiction books and six crime novels; their seventh novel, The Inquisitor's Key, was published yesterday. Read an excerpt.
For more on Jefferson Bass, find them on Facebook, read their blog, and follow along on Twitter. For current book-tour & blog-tour schedules, click here.
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%.
Criminals generally steal cars for one of two reasons; chopping or driving. Cars destined for the chop shop don't stay on the road long enough to matter so I'll focus on the latter. In this categories cars can be stolen to drive for short distances (i.e. escape a crime scene by car jacking) or long distances. Believe it or not some criminals steal cars simply because they don't want to buy one and maintain it. If they have the keys to the vehicle the car is hard to spot but when they don't there are some tell-tale signs. These signs correspond to the entry, operation, and identification of the vehicle.
Entry: Car thieves vary in sophistication and this is apparent in their method of entry (assuming the car is properly secured). Some just break out a window, but that is hard to hide. If they break out a window they have to cover it with plastic or it will stand out to others more than if it is left broken. If any of the windows are left slightly open the thief may just force it down far enough to get their arm in or a coat hanger. Another popular method is slipping the lock with a coat hanger or tool called a "slim Jim". In both cases there may be holes or damage to the rubber weather seals around the window or door frame. Other damage may be seen to the lock mechanism (where you insert the key). They may use a screwdriver or skeleton key in an attempt to open the door. This damage can be seen by close inspection of the lock although it is tougher to spot than a broken window.
Operation: Assuming the crook doesn't have a key they usually have to force the ignition. In these cases it is common to remove the steering column (plastic housing) in whole or in pieces (notice how I avoid telling you how to steal a car :)). Obviously this is hard to hide. You see, crooks that want to use the car for weeks or months don't want it to be obvious that the steering column is damaged so a passerby doesn't call the cops. One way to hide this is to wrap the area with a bandana or t-shirt (see photo). Most people don't "wrap" their steering column so this is a tell-tale sign of a forced ignition.
Identification: Stolen cars can be identified by either their license plates or VIN (vehicle identification number) and in some cases distinctive damage, mismatched paint, or bumper stickers. Changing license plates is pretty easy and if they drive within the law and don't act crazy it's unlikely a cop will run the plates. Some will change them. However, one giveaway is when the condition of the plates is inconsistent with the rest of the vehicle. For example, if the new plates are dirty and the vehicle is "clean" then one has to wonder how one could clean a car and miss the plates right? Another sign is plates missing a number of screws to hold it on or screws that aren't tightened all the way. So a screw sticking out a 1/4" is unusual and stands out to the CSI. Most of the time though they will forge a "Temp Tag" like the one in the photo. It's really not that hard and since they are taped onto the inside window they can be harder to spot unless you really examine them closely. Another source of identification is the VIN. The VIN placard is located on the dashboard on the driver's side near the front. Most criminals will simply put some papers or a hat on the dash to cover the plate making it impossible to read from the outside. When you combine that with mismatched plates and a wrapped steering column and you might as well hang a neon sign saying "Stolen Car".
Spotting a stolen car is a handy trait for your detective or CSI character to possess and the above are all good indicators.
by Tom Adair, thriller author and forensic scientist
As an undergrad I studied cultural anthropology and it made me a better criminalist. That education forced me to recognize that people engage in a myriad of cultural practices and beliefs. Some of these may seem quite odd, offend our morality, or be classified as criminal acts under our laws. Over the years I've spoken to criminalists from all over the world, and those conversations remind me that our perceptions and values are influenced by these practices. As people, we sometimes have a hard time understanding cultural practices outside our own, even among people of the same "society". These differences can sometimes be problematic for detectives and crime scene investigators because the activity does not conform to what we may consider "normal". Take the United States for example. We have a very diverse culture, even among people of the same geographic area. A prime example of this is food preparation.
A few months ago I saw this BLOG posting about a Polish ritual at Christmas time that involves the home slaughter of carp. It was the photograph of the bloody bathtub that really caught my eye and I immediately began wondering how I would react to seeing a tub full of blood at a crime scene. Most people don't have blood spattered all over their bathrooms. Then I remembered a trip I took to a small town in Iowa. A sign in the motel bathroom asked hunters not to clean their game birds in the bathtub. It's all a matter of perspective you see.
Killing an animal for food might seem very strange (even cruel) to people living in a city with a grocery store down the street. On the other hand, paying "good money" for a steak seems bizarre to a cattle rancher. I've been to crime scenes with goat heads in the refrigerator and live chickens scurrying around the house. At another scene, a cow's tongue was found hanging from a tree. The tongue was filled with tiny scraps of paper bearing the names of people. Out of a cultural context one might think they have stumbled into the home of a serial killer. More often than not though you've just expanded your cultural understanding of the world.
The reason I bring this up is that these cultural misunderstandings can lead to fireworks in life, and in your novel. As writers we tend to write what we know. What we "know" is often bound by our cultural practices. After all, it's hard to imagine some of the various rituals and ceremonies that exist outside our comfort zone.
This is especially true of food. People are much quicker to change their manner of dress or speech over diet. But just like real life detectives, writers should be mindful of the limitations of our accepted reality. We should embrace cultural differences because they can enrich a scene. As a reader I love being surprised. Nothing kills my desire to turn the page faster than one predictable scene after another. Predictable stories never challenge your views, never force you to look at the world in a new light. Cultural differences can momentarily scramble your brains, put you off balance. That makes for a memorable scene.
So as you are developing your characters ask yourself how you might use cultural differences to the delight of your readers. The more culturally diverse your scene setting is, the more likely your characters will encounter foreign practices. The same effect can happen in reverse too. If, for example, your character is placed into a foreign "homogenous" setting (think Crocodile Dundee). An easy place to start is the varied methods of meal preparation. Read up on various cultures and see if something catches your eye. If nothing else, you may find a great recipe!
When I look around at the writers in this blog, I am impressed by their professionalism and dedication to their writing. They do their homework, research carefully, and craft books that tell exciting stories in the most authentic way possible.
They make me feel puny in comparison.
When I was writing Freezer Burn, I turned to my cop friends for advice and opinions, which they were happy to provide. As I wrote my outline, I kept notes on what I needed to know. For example, could I go down to the Coroner's Office and interview anyone? My protagonist's BFF is an assistant coroner, so I might want to have a scene there.
And I should at least visit my local Placentia Police Department. It's in the courtyard with City Hall and the Library, so I've walked past their door a bunch of times, but never even wandered in.
While I mulled all this over, I was reading Joe Konrath's blog, or maybe it was his discussion group, and someone asked him how he got access to the Chicago police department in order to write his Lt. Jack Daniels series. His answer floored me.
"I make it all up."
Butbutbut - his scenes seem so real. I can see the police station and Jack's office and feel the bad ventilation and smell the staleness of the old building and…
So I made two decisions:
1. I was not going to get cozy with the PPD. For one thing, I didn't want any of the police officers to point to a character in the book and ask if that was them. It probably wouldn't be, since I don't write that way, and it would just be awkward. For another thing, I was afraid, if I tried to make the book too realistic and got one pencil holder out of place, there'd be someone to call me on it. Better to just imagine what it looks like and claim ignorance.
2. I was not going to try to tour the Coroner's Office. I just wouldn't set any scenes there.
I still consulted my friends, and even emailed D.P. Lyle about some forensic details, but mostly I went on my merry way, just like Joe, making stuff up.
The results were interesting. One of my friends questioned every move my fictional police did, claiming they would not have done it that way in real life. One of my friends said they had gone on patrol with their local police and they were surprised at how realistic I had made everything look. That surprised me.
One of my friends thought I painted the police in a very bad light, which alarmed me since that was NOT my intent at all. I tried to show them as professional, thorough, and process-driven, but often without resources to take things as far as one stubborn private investigator who is being paid to do nothing but solve this case.
I guess people can read the same words and still understand them differently.
Sometimes I want to walk down LJ's path and interview cops and go to crime-and-forensic seminars and be able to write more police procedurally. Then I would be a serious writer.
But who am I kidding? While I'm writing my stories, I picture them as a TV show, specifically on USA, where characters are welcome (if you ask them). Show of hands: who think Monk, Psych, Burn Notice, etc, could ever happen in real life?
(You, in the back, we need to talk.)
Last Sunday, I went to our monthly Sisters in Crime meeting (the Orange County chapter, for those of you who are mildly interested) and heard a wonderful presentation by Gary Bale, a former investigative homicide specialist, about the differences between reality forensics and TV forensics.
As we talked about the role forensics plays in current mystery books, one of the members said that if you are going to write a mystery set any time after 1990, you must include forensic science. It is used to solve cases nowadays, so the old Sherlock Holmes Deductive Theory solutions wouldn't work.
Another member said it's probably why she tends to like historical fiction better, because she really doesn't like a lot of procedure and forensic description in her mysteries as a reader. She just wants a good story.
I've long thought there are two camps of readers: those who want their entertainment as close to the facts as possible, and those who will accept an entertaining fictional world, whether it's fantasy, history, or yesterday.
You can find my tent in the fictional camp. You can't miss it - it's really big.
If you write crime fiction in any genre—hard boiled, cozy, thriller, romantic, literary—you must have some knowledge of forensic science. Even if your story doesn’t include DNA or fingerprints or toxicology or autopsies or any of the other forensic techniques, you have to know what’s out there. Failure to do so can sink your story.
You might not directly use any of these techniques in your yarn but you must acknowledge that they exist or risk losing the reader. You see, readers are smart. Especially readers of crime fiction. They know how crimes should be investigated and recoil when simple, common sense things are avoided. For example, if your killer breaks and enters and commits a murder, your investigator must consider such things as fingerprints, shoe prints, hair and fiber, tire tracks, DNA, and many other types of evidence. Okay, so maybe your little old blue-haired sleuth doesn’t use these procedures herself but she must be aware of them if she is to be clever enough to solve the confusing crime you have created for her. And the police that are also investigating the crime definitely should. Avoiding at the very least a passing mention of these techniques will cause your reader to lose confidence in you as a storyteller.
Delving into these techniques in any detail isn’t necessary but letting the results of these tests impact your characters is essential. It’s not the science that pushes the story forward but rather the effect the science has on your characters that’s the driving force.
What about the other end of the spectrum? Can too much science kill the story? If you stop for lengthy scientific explanations will the forward momentum of your story die?
Absolutely.
Remember, the story is not about the science, it’s about the characters. The science is not important per se, it’s the effect of the science on the characters that drives the story. The methods of DNA analysis are boring. The details of toxicological testing will flat out put you to sleep. But if the DNA points a finger at your innocent protagonist or the toxicology results suggest that the old man died of poisoning and not a heart attack, tension and conflict follow. And that’s what drives a story.
In my latest Dub Walker novel, Hot Lights, Cold Steel, there are many forensic science techniques in play. Autopsy findings, traumatic wound analysis, ballistics, toxicology, and time of death determination to name a few. But none of these are the story. These techniques might solve one problem but inevitable generate more questions. When one thing is figured out four more possibilities emerge. And each of these apply pressure to Dub as he tries to uncover the person, or persons, responsible for a series of bizarre murders perpetrated by someone with incredible surgical skills and state of the art toys.
Even my other new book, Royal Pains, First Do No Harm, which is a comedy/drama tied to the popular TV series and not necessarily crime fiction, contains forensic science. The testing itself is never discussed but the results, at first confusing, ultimately allow Dr. Hank Lawson to zero in on the bad guys.
Character and conflict. That’s what’s important in storytelling. Science merely adds to the conflict and ramps up the pressure. Never lose sight of the fact that it’s a character under pressure that makes readers turn pages and your stories will carry those readers into the world you’ve created.
How much forensic science detail do you like in your crime fiction?
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
